Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 13:1 (2022) ► pp.107–125

Challenges of trust in atypical interaction

| Tampere University
| Tampere University

All effective communication is based on the participants trusting that they share their basic orientations to the world – that is, they have a common ground. In this paper, however, we examine situations in which such trust is lacking. Drawing on conversation–analytic methodology and on 30 hours of video data featuring persons with dementia and their caregivers in a Swedish-language daycare center in Finland, we consider some of the social consequences resulting from a lack of trust. Our analysis focused on three different interactional contexts, highlighting the relevance of different facets of the participants’ common ground. These facets are anchored in the deontic, epistemic, and emotional orders, respectively. We show that, with regard to each order, a lack of trust in the existence of common ground has drastic consequences, leading to (1) problems related to getting one’s will acknowledged, (2) a scarcity of conversational partners, and (3) a lack of resources to maintain affection.

Keywords: trust, atypical interaction, conversation analysis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
  • 3.Data and methods
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Everyday choice
    • 4.2Confabulation
    • 4.3Humor
  • 5.Discussion
  • References
Published online: 21 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.18077.lin
References
Antaki, Charles, and Mick Finlay
2013 “Trust in What Others Mean: Breakdowns in Interaction Between Adults with Intellectual Disabilities and Support Staff.” In Discourses of Trust, ed. by Christopher Candlin, and Jonathan Chricton, 21–35. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Antaki, Charles, W. L. Mick Finlay, Chris Walton, and Louise Pate
2008 “Offering Choices to People with Intellectual Disabilities: An Interactional Study.” Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 52 (12): 1165–1175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arminen, Ilkka
2005 Institutional Interaction: Studies of Talk at Work. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
Bayles, Kathryn, and Cheryl K. Tomoeda
(eds.) 2007 Cognitive-Communication Disorders of Dementia. San Diego, Calif.: Plural Publishing.Google Scholar
Beeke, Suzanne, Ray Wilkinson, and Jane Maxim
2001 “Context as a Resource for The Constructions of Turns at Talk in Aphasia.” Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 15(1–2): 79–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berrios, German. E.
1998 “Confabulations: A Conceptual History.” Journal of the History of the Neurosciences 71: 225–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bortolotti, Lisa, and Rochelle E. Cox
2009 “Faultless” Ignorance: Strengths and Limitations of Epistemic Definitions of Confabulation.” Consciousness and Cognition 181: 952–965. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H.
1996 Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooley, Charles
1967 [1909] “The Social Self.” In Theories of Society. Foundations of Modern Sociological Theory Vol. 2, ed. by Talcott Parsons, Edward Shils, and Kaspar D. Naegele, 822–828. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul
1997 “Po-faced Receipts of Teases.” Linguistics 25 (1): 219–253.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, and John Heritage
(eds) (1992) Talk at Work: Language Use in Institutional and Work-Place Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Durkheim, Emile
1982 [1895] The Rules of Sociological Method. New York: Free Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Egbert, Maria and Arnulf Deppermann
2012 Hearing Aids Communication. Integrating Social Interaction, Audiology and User Centered Design to Improve Communication with Hearing Loss and Hearing Technologies. Mannheim: Verlag fur Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar
Ekberg, Katie, Louise Hickson, and Caitlin Grenness
2017 “Conversation Breakdown in the Audiology Clinic: The Importance of Mutual Gaze”. International Journal of Communication and Language Disorders 52 (3) 346–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold
1963 “A Conception of and Experiments with ‘Trust’ as a Condition of Stable Concerted Actions”. In Motivation and Social Interaction: Cognitive Determinants, ed. by O. J. Harvey, 187–238. New York: Ronald Press.Google Scholar
2006 Seeing Sociologically. Boulder, Colo.: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
2008 Toward a Sociological Theory of Information (edited and introduced by Anne Warfield Rawls). Boulder, Colo.: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1967 Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
1995 “Co-constructing Meaning in Conversation with an Aphasic Man.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 28 (3): 233–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 2003 Conversation and Brain Damage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013 The Co-operative, Transformative Organization of Human Action and Knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1): 8–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Herbert Paul
1975 “Logic and Conversation.” In Studies in Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 183–98. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Guendouzi, Jacqueline, and Nicole Müller
(eds.) 2006 Approaches to Discourse in Dementia. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John
1997 Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk: Analysing Data. In Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, ed. by David Silverman, 161–182. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
2012 “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (1): 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
James, William
1952 [1891] The Principles of Psychology (Great Books of the Western World 53). Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica.Google Scholar
Jansson, Gunilla and Charlotta Plejert
2014 “Taking a Shower: Managing a Potentially Imposing Activity in Dementia Care.” Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders 5(1): 27–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Danielle
2013 “A Family Living with Alzheimer’s Disease: The Communicative Challenges.” Dementia: The International Journal of Social Research and Practice 14 (5): 555–573. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keltner, Dacher, Lisa Capps, Ann M. Kring, Randall. C. Young, and Erin A. Heerey
2001 “Just Teasing: A Conceptual Analysis and Empirical Review.” Psychological Bulletin 1271: 229–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurhila, Salla
2006 Second Language Interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurhila, Salla, and Minna Laakso
2016 ”Puhumisen Haasteet.” [Challenges of Speech]. In Keskustelunanalyysi: Kuinka tutkia sosiaalista toimintaa ja vuorovaikutusta [Conversation Analysis: How to Study Social Action and Interaction], ed. by Melisa Stevanovic, and Camilla Lindholm, 224–242. Tampere: Vastapaino.Google Scholar
Laakso, Minna
1997 Self-initiated Repair by Fluent Aphasic Speakers in Conversation. Studia Fennica Linguistica 81. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
2012 “Aphasia as an Example of How a Communication Disorder Affects Interaction.” In Hearing Aids Communication, ed. by Maria Egbert and Arnulf Deppermann, 138–145. Mannheim: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar
Lind, Christopher, Louise Hickson, and Norman P. Erber
2004 “Conversation Repair and Acquired Hearing Impairment: A Preliminary Quantitative Clinical Study”. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Audiology 26 (1), 40–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindholm, Camilla
2008 “Laughter, Communication Problems and Dementia.” Communication & Medicine 5 (1): 3–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 “Parallel Realities: The Interactional Management of Confabulation in Dementia Care Encounters.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 48 (2): 176–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindholm, Camilla, and Alison Wray
2011 Proverbs and Formulaic Sequences in the Language of Elderly People with Dementia. Dementia 10 (4): 604–624. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindholm, Camilla
2016 “Luottamuksen haasteet.” [Challenges of trust.] In Keskustelunanalyysi. Kuinka tutkia sosiaalista toimintaa ja vuorovaikutusta [Conversation analysis. How to Study Social Action and Interaction], ed. by Melisa Stevanovic and Camilla Lindholm. Tampere: Vastapaino.Google Scholar
Linell, Per
1998 Approaching Dialogue: Talk, Interaction and Contexts in Dialogical Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matikka, Leena M., and Hannu T. Vesala
1997 ”Acquiescence in Quality-of-life Interviews with Adults Who Have Mental Retardation.” Mental Retardation 351: 75–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W.
2005 “Social Actions, Gestalt Coherence, and Designations of Disability: Lessons From and About Autism.” Social Problems 521: 499–524. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mead, George. H.
1950 [1934] Mind, Self, and Society from a Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mikesell, Lisa
2009 “Conversational Practices of a Frontotemporal Dementia Patient and His Interlocutors.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 42 (2): 135–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “The Use of Directives to Repair Embodied (Mis)Understandings in Interactions with Individuals Diagnosed with Frontotemporal Dementia.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(3): 201–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson
(eds.) 1996 Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pajo, Kati
2013 “The Occurrence of ‘What’, ‘Where’, ‘What House’ and Other Repair Initiations in the Home Environment of Hearing-Impaired Individuals”. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 48 (1): 66–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plejert, Charlotta, Camilla Lindholm, and Robert W. Schrauf
(eds.) 2017 Multilingual Interaction and Dementia. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, Gitte, Elisabeth Muth Andersen, and Elisabeth Dalby Kristiansen
(eds.) 2019 Professional Interactional Practices in Dementia Care. Special issue of Logopedics, Phoniatrics, Vocology, 1/2019 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, Gitte, Elisabeth Dalby Kristiansen, and Elisabeth Muth Andersen
2019 “Working out availability, unavailability and awayness in social face-to-face encounters: The case of dementia”. Discourse Studies 21(3): 258–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reimer, Holly D., and Heather H. Keller
2009 “Mealtimes in Nursing Homes: Striving for Person-centered Care.” Journal of Nutrition for the Elderly 28 (4): 327–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schermer, Maartje
2007 “Nothing but the Truth? On Truth and Deception in Dementia Care”. Bioethics 21 (1), 13–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schnider, Armin
2008 The Confabulating Mind: How the Brain Creates Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott-Phillips, Thom
2015 Speaking our minds: Why Human Communication is Different, and How Language Evolved to Make it Special. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shakespeare, Pamela
1998 Aspects of Confused Speech: A Study of Verbal Interaction between Confused and Normal Speakers. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sterponi, Laura, and Alessandro Fasulo
2010 “How to Go on: Intersubjectivity and Progressivity in the Communication of a Child with Autism.” Ethos 38 (1): 116–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa, and Anssi Peräkylä
2014 “Three Orders in the Organization of Human Action: On the Interface Between Knowledge, Power, and Emotion in Interaction and Social Relations.” Language in Society 43 (2): 185–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa, Pentti Henttonen, Sonja Koski, Mikko Kahri, Liisa Voutilainen, Emmi Koskinen, Taina Nieminen-von Wendt, Pekka Tani, Elina Sihvola, and Anssi Peräkylä
2017 “On the Asperger Experience of Interaction: Interpersonal Dynamics in Dyadic Conversations.” Journal of Autism 4 (2). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa, Taina Valkeapää, Elina Weiste, and Camilla Lindholm
2018 ”Osallisuus ja yhteinen päätöksenteko mielenterveyskuntoutuksessa.” [Participation and Joint Decision Making in Mental Health Rehabilitation]. Psykologia 05–06/2018: 402–420.Google Scholar
Stribling, Penny, John Rae, and Paul Dickerson
2009 “Using Conversation Analysis to Explore the Recurrence of a Topic in the Talk of a Boy with an Autism Spectrum Disorder. “Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 23 (8): 555–582. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, Ray
2019 “Atypical Interaction: Conversation Analysis and Communication Impairments.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 52(3): 281–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar