Chapter published in:
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
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.315.02kee
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Antaki, Charles
2012 “Affiliative and disaffiliative candidate understandings.” Discourse Studies 14(5): 531–547. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel
2008 The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2010 Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2010 “Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies.” Language 86(3): 663–687. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise
2003 Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of its Interactional Functions, with a Focus on I think. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 “I thought it was very interesting. Conversational formats for taking a stance.” Journal of Pragmatics 44(15): 2194–2210. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 “Clauses emerging as epistemic adverbs in Estonian conversation.” Linguistica Uralica 46(2): 81–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 “Pro-forms as projective devices in interaction.” Discourse Processes 48(6): 404–431. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza
2011 “Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 542–552. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1996 “Confirming allusion: Toward an empirical account of action.” American Journal of Sociology 102: 161–216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Michael Sean
2013 ““I thought” initiated turns: Addressing discrepancies in first-hand and second-hand knowledge.” Journal of Pragmatics 57: 318–330. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A.
2002 ““Object complements” and conversation: Towards a realistic account.” Studies in Language 26(1): 125–164. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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