Cover not available
Part of
Fixed Expressions: Building language structure and social action
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

| Linköping University
| Victoria University of Wellington
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
Published online: 10 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.315.02kee
References (59)
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Antaki, Charles. 2012. “Affiliative and disaffiliative candidate understandings.” Discourse Studies 14(5): 531–547. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel. 2008. The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulter, Jeff. 1979. The Social Construction of Mind: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Linguistic Philosophy. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Edwards, Derek. 1997. Discourse and Cognition. London: Sage.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
. 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.Google Scholar
Erman, Britt, and Beatrice Warren. 2000. “The idiom principle and the open choice principle.” Text 20(1): 29–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. “Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies.” Language 86(3): 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1987. “Emergent grammar.” Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: 139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “I thought it was very interesting. Conversational formats for taking a stance.” Journal of Pragmatics 44(15): 2194–2210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
. 2003. From Interaction to Grammar: Estonian Finite Verb Forms in Conversation. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Uralica Upsaliensia 34.Google Scholar
. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Clauses emerging as epistemic adverbs in Estonian conversation.” Linguistica Uralica 46(2): 81–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “Pro-forms as projective devices in interaction.” Discourse Processes 48(6): 404–431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Lindwall, Oskar, and Gustav Lymer. 2011. “Uses of “understand” in science education.” Journal of Pragmatics 43(2): 452–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2011. “Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 542–552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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.Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew, and Frances Syder. 1983. “Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency.” Language and Communication 7(1): 191–226.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Potter, Jonathan. 2006. “Cognition and conversation.” Discourse Studies 8(1): 131–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ryle, Gilbert. 1949. The Concept of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation (Vols. I and II). G. Jefferson (ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. “Confirming allusion: Toward an empirical account of action.” American Journal of Sociology 102: 161–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Michael Sean. 2013. ““I thought” initiated turns: Addressing discrepancies in first-hand and second-hand knowledge.” Journal of Pragmatics 57: 318–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. ““Object complements” and conversation: Towards a realistic account.” Studies in Language 26(1): 125–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Weatherall, Ann, and Leelo Keevallik. 2016. “When claims of understanding are less than affiliative.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(3): 167–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, David. 2015. Fundamentals of Formulaic Language: An Introduction. London, New York: Bloomsbury AcademicGoogle Scholar
Wray, Alison. 2008. Formulaic Language: Pushing the Boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar