Cover not available
Part of
Building Categories in Interaction: Linguistic resources at work
Edited by Caterina Mauri, Ilaria Fiorentini and Eugenio Goria
[Studies in Language Companion Series 220] 2021
► pp. 187–210

Chapter 7
Making the implicit explicit

Free enrichment in interaction

| Free University Berlin
Semantic underdeterminacy in the form of unformulated syntactic slots is a widely-discussed research theme, even though opinions differ about whether the interpretation is a result of pragmatic processes of free enrichment (e.g., Carston 2004; Recanati 2002, 2004; Sperber & Wilson 1986/1995) or of obligatory processes of the linguistic structure (Stanley 2007). Using a conversation analytic approach, a corpus of narrative interviews can show that interlocutors use a wide range of turns to deal with these forms of semantic underdeterminacy. In narrative interviews, prototypically the communicative functions of these turns (e.g. repair, gaining time or developing the topic) are in relation to the accessibility of possible candidates within the given context. The empirical findings support the relevance theory account of free enrichment.
Keywords: semantic underdeterminacy, free enrichment, relevance theory, implicit-explicit communication, narrative interviews, retrospective utterance, communicative function, other-initiated repair, gaining time, developing the topic
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Relevance theoretical perspective
    • 2.1The conversational analytic perspective: Other-initiated repair
  • 3.Method and data
    • 3.1Narrative interviews: The corpus of the fall of the wall
    • 3.2Data
  • 4.Empirical analysis
    • 4.1The implicit source term linguistically
    • 4.2Possible meanings: Candidates and utterance formats
    • 4.3The communicative function of elaborating implicit syntactic slots
      • 4.3.1Presenting accessible candidates with strategic function
      • 4.3.2Realizing repair in the case of two or a restricted set of possible candidates
      • 4.3.3Endless possible candidates or no candidate accessible
  • 5.Summary
  • 6.Transcript conventions GAT II(Selting et al. 2009, selection)
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.220.07pau
References (44)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Antaki, Charles. 2012. Affiliative and disaffiliative candidate understandings. Discourse Studies 14: 531–547. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2006. Increments and more. Anmerkungen zur augenblicklichen Diskussion über die Erweiterbarkeit von Turnkonstruktionseinheiten. In Grammatik und Interaktion, Arnulf Deppermann, Reinhard Fiehler & Thomas Spranz-Fogasy (eds), 279–294. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar
Brinker, Klaus & Hagemann, Jörg. 2001. Themenstruktur und Themenentfaltung in Gesprächen. In Text- und Gesprächslinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, Vol. 2 [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 16.2]), Klaus Brinker, Gerd Antos, Wolfgang Heinemann & Sven F. Sager (eds), 1252–1263. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2004. Relevance theory and the saying/implicating distinction. In Handbook of Pragmatics, Laurence Horn & Gergory Ward (eds), 633–656. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn & Hall, Alison. 2017. Contextual effects on explicature: Optional pragmatics or optional syntax? International Review of Pragmatics 9(1): 51–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2015. Retrospection and understanding in interaction. In Temporality in Interaction [Studies in Language and Social Interaction 27], Arnulf Deppermann & Susanne Günthner (eds), 57–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norbert, Dittmar & Paul, Christine. 2019. Sprechen im Umbruch. Zeitzeugen erzählen und argumentieren rund um den Fall der Mauer im Wendekorpus. Mannheim: Leibnitz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul. 1997. ‚Open‘ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 28(1): 69–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Egbert, Maria. 2009. Der Reparaturmechanismus in deutschen Gesprächen. Mannheim. <[URL]> (5 March 2020).
Enfield, Nicholas J., Mark Dingemanse, Julija Baranova, Joe Blythe, Penelope Brown, Tyko Dirksmeyer, Paul Drew, Simeon Floyd, Sonja Gipper, Rósa Gísladóttir, Gertie Hoymann, Kobin H. Kendrick, Stephen C. Levinson, Lilla Magyari, Elizabeth Manrique, Giovanni Rossi, Lila San Roque & Francisco Torreira. 2013. Huh? What? – A first survey in 21 languages. In Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, Makoto Hayashi, Geoffrey Raymond & Jack Sidnell (eds), 343–380. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferrara, Kathleen. 1992. The interactive achievement of a sentence: Joint productions in therapeutic discourse. Discourse Processes 15(2): 207–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto, Raymond, Geoffrey & Sidnell, Jack. 2013. Conversational repair and human understanding. An introduction. In Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, Makoto Hayashi, Geoffrey Raymond & Jack Sidnell (eds), 1–40. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2009. Conversation analysis and instituional talk: Analysing data. In Conversation Analysis [Sage Benchmarks in Social Research Methods 1], Paul Drew & John Heritage (eds), 1–26. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Heritage, John & Claymann, Steven. 2010. Talk in Action. Interactions, Identities and Institutions. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John & Raymond, Geoffrey. 2012. Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, Jan P. de Ruiter (ed.), 179–192. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William & Fanshel, David. 1977. Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene. 2004. On the place of linguistic resources in the organization of talk-in-interaction: Grammar as action in prompting a speaker to elaborate. Research on Language and Social Interaction 37(2): 151–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lucius-Hoene, Gabriele & Deppermann, Arnulf. 2004. Rekonstruktion narrativer Identität: Ein Arbeitsbuch zur Analyse narrativer Interviews. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazeland, Harrie & Benjamin, Trevor. 2013. Conversation analysis and other-initiated repair. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Carol A. Chapelle (ed.), 1068–1075. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Muylaert, Camila, Sarubbi Jr, Vicente, Rogério Gallo, Paulo, Rolim Neto, Modesto Leite & Advincula Reis, Alberto Olavo. 2014. Narrative interviews: An important resource in qualitative research. Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P 48(2): 184–189. <[URL]> (5 March 2020). DOI logo
Murray, Michael. 2018. Narrative data. In Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection, Uwe Flick (ed.), 264–279. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, Christine. 2019. Retrospektive Äußerungen. Nachfragen und Erweiterungen in narrativen Interviews am Beispiel des Berliner Wendekorpus. Mannheim: IDS.Google Scholar
. 2014. The epistemic side of retrospective utterances. Language and Dialogue 4(1): 24–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paulson, Susan. 2011. The use of ethnography and narrative interviews in a study of ‘cultures of dance’. Journal of Health Psychology 16(1): 148–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Recanati, François. 2004. Literal Meaning. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 2002. Unarticulated constituents. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 299–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rost-Roth, Martina. 2006. Nachfragen. Formen und Funktionen äußerungsbezogener Interrogationen. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1998. Lectures on Conversation, Vol. I. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Vol. 1. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. When others initiate repair. Applied Linguistics 2(2): 205–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996. Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. The American Journal of Sociology 102(1): 161–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Jefferson, Gail & Sacks, Harvey. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53: 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret, Auer, Peter, Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar et al. 2009. Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 10: 353–402. <[URL]> (5 March 2020).
Selting, Margret. 1995. Prosodie im Gespräch. Aspekte einer interaktionalen Phonologie der Konversation. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2012. Turn continuation by self and by other. Discourse Processes 49(3–4): 314–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deidre. 1986 [1995]. Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 2005. Pragmatics. In The Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy, Frank Jackson & Michael Smith (eds), 468–501. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Stanley, Jason. 2007. Language in Context. Selected Essays. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2002. Context and logical form. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 391–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svennevig, Jan. 2008. Trying the easiest solution first in other-initiation of repair. Journal of Pragmatics 40(2): 333–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szczepek, Beatrice. 2000a. Formal aspects of collaborative productions in English conversation. InLiSt – Interaction and Linguistic Structures 17, June 2000. <[URL]> (5 March 2021).
. 2000b. Functional aspects of collaborative productions in English conversation. InLiSt – Interaction and Linguistic Structures 21, December 2000. <[URL]> (31 May 2018).