Cover not available
Part of
Intersubjectivity in Action: Studies in language and social interaction
Edited by Jan K. Lindström, Ritva Laury, Anssi Peräkylä and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 326] 2021
► pp. 25–39

Organizing the “we” in interaction

| University of Oslo
In this paper, I analyse a piece of interaction during which the participants seem to have trouble arriving at an agreement in a series of affective evaluations. The sequence does not contain other initiations of repair, third position repairs or fourth position repairs, places in which problems of intersubjectivity become visible in the conversation analytic tradition. I show that these problems are due to the fact that the participants do not share an understanding of the nature of the conversation, their respective roles in it, or their mutual relationship. In the end, I discuss my analysis in light of the Schuetzian (1953) understanding of intersubjectivity and suggest that initiating and accomplishing repair are not the only means for restoring intersubjectivity in interaction.
Keywords: affective evaluation, assessment, reciprocity of perspectives, Schuetz
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The analysis
  • 3.What happens in this sequence of talk?
  • 4.Intersubjectivity in interaction
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 November 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.326.02ete
References (19)
References
Etelämäki, Marja. 2009. “The Finnish Demonstrative Pronouns in Light of Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 41 (1): 25–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Etelämäki, Marja, Markku Haakana, and Mia Halonen. 2013. “Keskustelukumppanin kehuminen suomalaisessa keskustelussa [Complimenting in everyday Finnish conversation].” Virittäjä 117 (4): 460–493.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie Harness Goodwin. 1987. “Concurrent Operations on Talk: Notes on the Interactive Organization of Assessments.” IPrA Papers in Pragmatics 1 (1): 1–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen. 2009. “Designing Utterances for Action: Verb Repeat Responses to Assessments.” In Talk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions, ed. by Markku Haakana, Minna Laakso, and Jan Lindström, 124–151. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo. 2016. “Abandoning Dead Ends: The Estonian Junction Marker maitea ‘I Don’t Know’.” Journal of Pragmatics 106: 115–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koivisto, Aino. 2017. “Uutta tietoa vai oivallus? Eräiden dialogipartikkeleiden tehtävistä [New information or sudden realisation? On the functions of some response particles in Finnish].” Virittäjä 121 (4): 473–499. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laitinen, Lea. 2006. “Zero Person in Finnish: A Grammatical Resource for Construing Human Reference.” In Grammar from the Human Perspective. Case, Space and Person in Finnish, ed. by Marja-Liisa Helasvuo, and Lyle Campbell, 209–231. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lawler, Edward J., Shane R. Thye, and Jeongkoo Yoon. 2014. “The Emergence of Collective Emotions in Social Exchange.” In Collective Emotions, ed. by Christian von Scheve, and Mikko Salmela, 189–203. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1980. “Telling My Side: “Limited Access as a ‘Fishing Device’.” Sociological Inquiry 50: 186–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization for Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735. DOI logoGoogle 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., and Harvey Sacks. 1973. “Opening up Closings.” Semiotica 8 (4): 289–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schuetz, Alfred. 1953. “Common-Sense and Scientific Interpretation of Human Action.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 14 (1): 1–38. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2014. “The Architecture of Intersubjectivity Revisited”. In Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology, ed. by N. J. Enfield, Paul Kockelman, and Jack Sidnell, 364–399. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001. Responding in Conversation. A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, and Heidi Vepsäläinen. 2016. “The Finnish Particle no .” In NU and NÅ: A Family of Discourse Markers Across the Languages of Europe and Beyond, ed. by Peter Auer, and Yael Maschler, 243–280. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VISK = Auli Hakulinen, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen, and Arja Alho. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi [Finnish descriptive grammar]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. Accessed 26 June 2019. [URL]. ISBN: 978-952-5446-35-7.Google Scholar