Cover not available
Part of
Temporality in Interaction
Edited by Arnulf Deppermann and Susanne Günthner
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 27] 2015
► pp. 57–94

Retrospection and Understanding in Interaction

ORCID logo
This paper shows how understanding in interaction is informed by temporality, and in particular, by the workings of retrospection. Under­standing is a temporally extended, sequentially organized process. Tempo­rality, namely, the sequential relationship of turn positions, equips partici­pants with default mechanisms to display understandings and to expect such displays. These mechanisms require local management of turn-taking to be in order, i.e., the possibility and the expectation to respond locally and reciprocally to prior turns at talk. Sequential positions of turns in in­teraction provide an infrastructure for displaying understanding and accom­plishing intersubjectivity. Linguistic practices specialized in dis­playing particular kinds of (not) understanding are adapted to the individual sequential positions with respect to an action-to-be-understood.
Published online: 20 March 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.27.02dep
References (78)
Argelander, Hermann. 1991. Der Text und seine Verknüpfungen: Studien zur psychoanalytischen Methode. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1981. “Discourse in the Novel.” In his The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Translated by Michael Holquist and Caryl Emerson. 259–422. Austin, TX: U Texas P.Google Scholar
Bergmann, Jörg R. 1985. “Flüchtigkeit und methodische Fixierung sozialer Wirklichkeit: Aufzeichnungen als Daten interpretativer Soziologie.” In Entzauberte Wissenschaft. Zur Relativität und Geltung soziologischer Forschung, ed. by Wolfgang Bonß and Heinz Hartmann, 299–320. Göttingen: Schwartz.Google Scholar
Betz, Emma, Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm, Veronika Drake, et al. 2013. “Third-Position Repeats in German: The Case of Repair- and Request-for-Information Sequences.” Gesprächsforschung 14: 133–166, [URL].Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. and Susan A. Brennan. 1991. “Grounding in Communication.” In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, ed. by Lauren B. Resnick, John M. Levine, and Stephanie D. Teasley, 127–149. Washington: APA. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2011. “Notionalizations: The Transformation of Descriptions into Categorizations.” Human Studies 34 (2): 155–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “How Does ‘Cognition’ Matter to the Analysis of Talk-in-Interaction?” Language Sciences 34 (6): 746–767. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Turn-Design at Turn-Beginnings: Multimodal Resources to Deal with Tasks of Turn-Construction in German.” Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1): 91–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Ms.): “Repetition and Alignment in everyday Interaction.” Paper given at SFB “Aligment in Communication”, University of Bielefeld.
Deppermann, Arnulf and Henrike Helmer. 2013. “Zur Grammatik des Verstehens im Gespräch: Inferenzen anzeigen und Handlungskonsequenzen ziehen mit also und dann.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 32 (1): 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf and Reinhold Schmitt. 2007. “Koordination. Zur Begründung eines neuen Forschungsgegenstandes.” In Koordination. Analysen zur multimodalen Interaktion, ed. by Reinhold Schmitt, 15–54. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf and Reinhold Schmitt . 2009. “Verstehensdokumentation: Zur Phänomenologie von Verstehen in der Interaktion.” Deutsche Sprache 36 (3): 220–245.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul. 2003. “Comparative Analysis of Talk-in-Interaction in Different Institutional Settings.” In Studies in Language and Social Interaction, ed. by Philipp J. Glenn, Curtis D. LeBaron, and Jenny Mandelbaum, 293–308. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2007. “The Stance Triangle.” In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. by Robert Englebretson, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eco, Umberto. 1981. The Role of the Reader. Bloomington and London: Indiana UP and Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Edwards, Derek. 1997. Discourse and cognition. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Edwards, Derek and Jonathan Potter. 1992. Discursive Psychology. London: Sage.Google Scholar
. 2006. “Discursive Psychology, Mental States and Descriptions.” In Conversation and Cognition, ed. by Hedwig te Molder and Jonathan Potter, 241–259. Cambridge, MA: CUP.Google Scholar
Ehlich, Konrad. 1983. “Text und sprachliches Handeln. Die Entstehung von Texten aus dem Bedürfnis nach Überlieferung.” In Schrift und Gedächtnis. Beiträge zur Archäologie der literarischen Kommunikation, ed. by Aleida Assmann, Jan Assmann, and Christof Hardmeier, 24–43. München: Fink.Google Scholar
Frank, Manfred. 1989. Das Sagbare und das Unsagbare. Studien zur neuesten französischen Hermeneutik und Texttheorie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1960. Wahrheit und Methode. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1963. Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
. 1970. Strategic Interaction. Philadelphia, PA: U Pennsylvania P.Google Scholar
Golato, Andrea and Emma Betz. 2008. “German ach and achso in Repair Uptake: Resources to Sustain or Remove Epistemic Asymmetry.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 27: 7–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golato, Andrea. 2010. “Marking Understanding versus Receipting Information in Talk: achso and ach in German Interaction.” Discourse Studies 12 (2): 147–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 2013. “The Co-operative, Transformative Organization of Human Action and Knowledge.” Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1): 8–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies in the Ways of Words. London: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1985. Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Helmer, Henrike. 2011. Die Herstellung von Kohärenz in der Interaktion durch Turnanschlüsse mit dann. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung, URL: [URL].Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. “A Change-of-state Token and Aspects of its Sequential Placement.” In Structures of Social Action, ed. by John M. Atkinson and John Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 2006. “Cognition in Discourse.” In Conversation and Cognition, ed. by Hedwig te Molder and Jonathan Potter, 184–202. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 2007. “Intersubjectivity and Progressivity in Person (and Place) Reference.” In Person Reference in Interaction, ed. by Nick Enfield and Tanya Stivers, 255–280. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Heritage, John and Watson, D.R. 1979. “Formulations as conversational objects.” In Everyday language, ed. by George Psathas, 123–162. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Hinnenkamp, Volker. 1998. Missverständnisse in Gesprächen. Opladen: Westdeutscher. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, Jerry R. 2004. “Abduction in Natural Language.” In Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Lawrence Horn and Gregory Ward, 724–741. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Husserl, Edmund. 1995[1929]. Cartesianische Meditationen. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Imo, Wolfgang. 2009. “Konstruktion oder Funktion? Erkenntnisprozessmarker (‘change-of state tokens‘) im Deutschen.” In Grammatik im Gespräch, ed. by Susanne Günthner and Jörg Bücker, 57–86. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kindt, Walter. 2002. “Konzeptuelle Grundlagen einer Theorie der Verständigungsprobleme.“ In Verständigungsprobleme und gestörte Kommunikation, ed. by Reinhard Fiehler, 17–43. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung, URL: [URL].Google Scholar
Kintsch, Walter. 1998. Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Koch, Peter and Wulf Oesterreicher 1986. “Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte.” Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36: 15–43.Google Scholar
Koschman, Timothy (ed.). 2011. “Understanding Understanding in Action.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2): 435–690. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koshik, Irene. 2002. “Designedly Incomplete Utterances: A Pedagogical Practice for Eliciting Knowledge Displays in Error Correction Sequences.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 35 (3): 277–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. 1991. “On the Syntax of Sentences in Progress.” Language in Society 20: 441–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “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
Linell, Per. 2009. Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas. 1984. Soziale Systeme. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
. 1995. “Wie ist Bewusstsein an Kommunikation beteiligt?” In his Soziologische Aufklärung, 37–54. Opladen: Westdeutscher.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1962. Signes. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Meyrowitz, Joshua. 1990. “Using Contextual Analysis to Bridge the Study of Mediated and Unmediated Behavior.” In Mediation, Information and Communication. Vol. 3: Information and Behavior, ed. by Brent D. Ruben and Leath A. Lievrouw, 67–94. New Brunswick: Transaction Press.Google Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2009. “Emergent focused interactions in public places: A systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space.” Journal of Pragmatics 41, 1977–1997. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “Understanding as an Embodied, Situated and Sequential Achievement in Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 542–552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Martin J. and Simon Garrod. 2004. “Toward a Mechanistic Psychology of Dialogue.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (2): 169–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Potter, Jonathan and Hedwig te Molder. 2006. “Talking Cognition: Mapping and Making the Terrain.” In Conversation and Cognition, ed. by Hedwig te Molder and Jonathan Potter, 1–54. Cambridge, MA: CUP.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. Volumes I & II, ed. by Gail Jefferson. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey and Emanuel A. Schegloff. 1979. “Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons in Conversation and their Interaction.” In Everyday Language, ed. by George Psathas, 15–21. New York: Center for the Study of Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1991. “Conversation Analysis and Socially Shared Cognition.” In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, ed. by Lauren B. Resnick, John M. Levine, and Stephanie D. Teasley, 150–171. Washington, DC: APA. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992a. “In another context.” In Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, ed. by Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin, 193–227. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 1992b. “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, Emmanuel A. 1996. “Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction.” Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emmanuel A. Schegloff and Sandra A. Thompson, 53–133. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emmanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks. 1977. “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53: 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffer, Stephen. 1972. Meaning. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Schleiermacher, Friedrich D.E. 1977[1838]. Hermeneutik und Kritik. Frankfurt am Main. Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Schneider, Wolfgang Ludwig. 2004. Grundlagen der soziologischen Theorie. Band 3. Wiesbaden: VS. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scholz, Oliver R. 2001. Verstehen und Rationalität. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Schütz, Alfred. 1974[1932]. Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Schütz, Alfred and Thomas Luckmann. 1979. Strukturen der Lebenswelt Band 1. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Spranz-Fogasy, Thomas. 1986. widersprechen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2005. “Modified Repeats: One Method for Asserting Primary Rights from Second Position.” Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38 (2): 131–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig (eds.). 2011. The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svennevig, Jan. 2004. “Other-Repetition as Display of Hearing, Understanding and Emotional Stance.” Discourse Studies 6 (4): 489–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
te Molder, Hedwig and Jonathan Potter (eds.). 2006. Conversation and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2008. Origins of Human Communication. London: MIT.Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A. and Walter Kintsch. 1983. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 2001[1922]. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft.Gesamtausgabe Band 22/1. Tübingen.Google Scholar
Cited by (37)

Cited by 37 other publications

Acosta Córdoba, Luisa Fernanda & Isabel Colón de Carvajal
2024. Debatir en el aula: el efecto de la dinámica de grupo efímero en las estrategias de reparación y en la percepción de las asimetrías entre estudiantes universitarios francófonos de ELE. Didáctica. Lengua y Literatura 36 ► pp. 215 ff. DOI logo
Edman, Kristina
2024. Doing mutual understanding in child and family therapy sessions: How three interlocutors calibrate new information. Discourse Studies 26:2 ► pp. 199 ff. DOI logo
Ohlhus, Sören
2024. Arbeit mit Texten in der Unterrichtsinteraktion. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Germanistenverbandes 71:1 ► pp. 95 ff. DOI logo
Baldauf-Quilliatre, Heike, Elizaveta Chernyshova, Isabel Colon de Carvajal, Carole Etienne, Lydia Heiden & Laurène Smykowski
2023. “ peut-être on peut improviser un peu ”. In Reference [Studies in Language Companion Series, 228], ► pp. 287 ff. DOI logo
Deppermann, Arnulf & Elwys De Stefani
2023. Meaning in interaction. Interactional Linguistics 3:1-2 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Persson, Rasmus
2023. Chapter 5. Three practices for confirming inferences in French talk-in-interaction. In Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 35], ► pp. 139 ff. DOI logo
Pfänder, Stefan, Philipp Freyburger, Daniela Marzo & Ignacio Satti
2022. Doing remembering as a multimodal accomplishment. Interactional Linguistics 2:1 ► pp. 110 ff. DOI logo
Deppermann, Arnulf & Axel Schmidt
2021. How Shared Meanings and Uses Emerge Over an Interactional History:Wabi Sabiin a Series of Theater Rehearsals. Research on Language and Social Interaction 54:2 ► pp. 203 ff. DOI logo
Hoeppe, Götz
2021. Encoding Collective Knowledge, Instructing Data Reusers: The Collaborative Fixation of a Digital Scientific Data Set. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 30:4 ► pp. 463 ff. DOI logo
Paul, Christine
2021. Chapter 7. Making the implicit explicit. In Building Categories in Interaction [Studies in Language Companion Series, 220], ► pp. 187 ff. DOI logo
Rauniomaa, Mirka, Tiina Keisanen & Pauliina Siitonen
2021. Shared understandings of the human–nature relationship in encounters with small wildlife. In Intersubjectivity in Action [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 326], ► pp. 201 ff. DOI logo
Sammarco, Carmela
2021. Chapter 8. Online text mapping. In Building Categories in Interaction [Studies in Language Companion Series, 220], ► pp. 211 ff. DOI logo
Vatanen, Anna
2021. Co-presence during lapses. In Intersubjectivity in Action [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 326], ► pp. 251 ff. DOI logo
Arundale, Robert B.
2020. Two Projects. In Communicating & Relating, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Arundale, Robert B.
2020. Conjointly Co-constituting Relating and Face in Everyday Interacting. In Communicating & Relating, ► pp. 314 ff. DOI logo
Arundale, Robert B.
2020. Face Constituting Theory. In Communicating & Relating, ► pp. 275 ff. DOI logo
Arundale, Robert B.
2020. What Is Individual in Communicating. In Communicating & Relating, ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo
Arundale, Robert B.
2020. Conjointly Co-constituting the Social and the Individual in Communicating. In Communicating & Relating, ► pp. 161 ff. DOI logo
Arundale, Robert B.
2020. Communicating & Relating, DOI logo
Arundale, Robert B.
2020. What Is Social in Communicating. In Communicating & Relating, ► pp. 16 ff. DOI logo
Arundale, Robert B.
2020. An Algorithm for Autonomous Co-constituting in Conjoint Co-constituting. In Communicating & Relating, ► pp. 409 ff. DOI logo
Arundale, Robert B.
2020. Researching Relating and Face in Everyday Interacting. In Communicating & Relating, ► pp. 361 ff. DOI logo
Arundale, Robert B.
2020. Conjoint Co-constituting’s Implications. In Communicating & Relating, ► pp. 208 ff. DOI logo
Arundale, Robert B.
2020. The Conjoint Co-constituting Model of Communicating. In Communicating & Relating, ► pp. 44 ff. DOI logo
Arundale, Robert B.
2020. Conjointly Co-constituting Relating. In Communicating & Relating, ► pp. 246 ff. DOI logo
Arundale, Robert B.
2020. An Alternate Representation of Conjoint Co-constituting. In Communicating & Relating, ► pp. 403 ff. DOI logo
Arundale, Robert B.
2020. Conjoint Co-constituting, Constituting Face, and Future Research. In Communicating & Relating, ► pp. 392 ff. DOI logo
Arundale, Robert B.
2020. Transcription Conventions. In Communicating & Relating, ► pp. 401 ff. DOI logo
Helmer, Henrike
2020. How Do Speakers Define the Meaning of Expressions? The Case of Germanx heißt y(“x means y”). Discourse Processes 57:3 ► pp. 278 ff. DOI logo
Hoey, Elliott M.
2020. When Conversation Lapses, DOI logo
Küttner, Uwe-A.
2020.  Tying Sequences Together with the [ That’s + Wh -Clause] Format: On (Retro-)Sequential Junctures in Conversation . Research on Language and Social Interaction 53:2 ► pp. 247 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2019. Conversation-analytic transcription of Arabic-German talk-in-interaction [Working Papers in Corpus Linguistics and Digital Technologies: Analyses and Methodology, 2], DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2020. Introduction. In Communicating & Relating, ► pp. xvii ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2020. Series Editor Preface. In Communicating & Relating, ► pp. xi ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2020. Note on Sources. In Communicating & Relating, ► pp. 453 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2020. Copyright Page. In Communicating & Relating, ► pp. iv ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. OKAY across Languages [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 34], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.