Intersubjectivity and the domains of social interaction : proposal of a cross-sectional approach

Intersubjectivity is a concept central to human interaction, broadly understood as the sharing of minds. There is a rich diversity of conceptualizations of intersubjectivity, but detailed operationalization for its component processes in social interactions are scarce. We propose a novel approach to examine detailed variation in intersubjectivity in interaction. Our approach combines two previously formulated frameworks: the hierarchically organized developmental levels of intersubjectivity put forth in the field of developmental psychology, and three domains or orders of social interaction - affect, deontics, and epistemics - discussed in conversation analytic research literature. The interdisciplinary integration of these two frameworks allows a more crystallized view of intersubjectivity, which will benefit our understanding of the fine-scale social interaction processes as they vary in the course of the moment-to-moment unfolding of social action, across different stages of human social development, and between individuals belonging to different clinical groups and even to different species.Peer reviewe

Conversation analysis and power: examining the descendants and antecedents of social action

Conversation Analysis (CA) tends to adopt an ambivalent attitude to the concept of power. The concept is fundamental in sociology but secondary or even disregarded in CA. A closer look at research and the conceptual foundations of CA however demonstrate significant contributions to theories of power. In this paper we aim to demonstrate and discuss these contributions, however, also arguing for an expansion of the CA approach in dialogue with sociological theories to engage in the sociological analysis of power as an essential feature of social relationships and social organization. Based on a general definition of power, as the transformative capacities of social agents in virtue of their social relationships, we discuss how power is interactionally achieved and negotiated, but also conditioned by social institutions and structures that extend beyond the contexts of situated encounters. The paper is divided into two main sections. The first section presents central contributions of CA in relation to the distinctions between power over and power to, authority as a legitimate form of power, and deontics as a key concept in the analysis of power. The second section critically considers the tendency in CA to localize power solely to actions in interaction, and to conflate structure and action, which constraints the analysis and explanations of power. We present examples of how analyses of power, grounded in CA, can be extended to account for the dynamics of social structures and realities beyond the interactional encounters

Conversation analysis

Peer reviewe

Offering alternatives as a way of issuing directives to children: Putting the worse option last

In a corpus of c. 250 h of recorded interactions between young children and adults in USA and UK households, we found that children could be directed to change their course of action by three syntactic formats that offered alternatives: an imperative, or a modal declarative, plus a consequential alternative to non-compliance (e.g. come down at once or I shall send you straight to bed; you’ve got to stand here with it or it goes back in the cupboard), or an interrogative requiring a preference (e.g. do you want to put them neatly in the corner for mummy please or do you wanna go to bed). Formatted syntactically as or-alternatives, these can perform the actions both of warning and threatening. But they make a ‘bad’ course of action contiguous to the child's turn. We argue that adults choose this format because the interactional preference for contiguity makes the negative alternative the more salient one. This implies that adults attribute to children the ability to appreciate the flouting of preference organisation for deontic effect

Offering alternatives as a way of issuing directives to children: putting the worse option last

In a corpus of c. 250 hours of recorded interactions between young children and adults in USA and UK households, we found that children could be directed to change their course of action by three syntactic formats that offered alternatives: an imperative, or a modal declarative, plus a consequential alternative to non-compliance (e.g. come down at once or I shall send you straight to bed; you've got to stand here with it or it goes back in the cupboard), or an interrogative requiring a preference (e.g. do you want to put them neatly in the corner for mummy please or do you wanna go to bed). Formatted syntactically as or-alternatives, these can perform the actions both of warning and threatening. But they make a 'bad' course of action contiguous to the child's turn. We argue that adults choose this format because the interactional preference for contiguity makes the negative alternative the more salient one. This implies that adults attribute to children the ability to appreciate the flouting of preference organisation for deontic effect

Deontic rights in interaction : A conversation analytic study on authority and cooperation

This dissertation describes people s orientations to "deontic rights" -that is, their rights to determine actions. Through analyses of video-recorded church workplace meetings between pastors and cantors as data, and conversation analysis as a theoretical and methodological framework, the study examines how participants in interaction may establish their own and each other s deontic rights in the turn-by-turn sequential unfolding of interaction. The dissertation consists of six original articles and an introduction, which introduces the central concepts of the study, provides an overview of its results, and discusses the ways in which the study contributes to the existing knowledge of social interaction. The study considers deontic rights from two different angles. First, it describes how participants in interaction may claim or mitigate their claims of deontic rights by virtue of their overt interactional conduct: Article 1 discusses the participants ways of dealing with those claims of deontic rights that arise from their participation in an encounter, and Articles 2 4 consider how participants in joint decision making may establish and maintain the symmetrical distribution of deontic rights at different sequential loci. Second, the study describes the ways in which participants may deploy their deontic rights as interactional resources, as they design their communicative actions so as to be recognizable as such. The central argument presented in Articles 5 and 6 is that, instead of always needing to claim their deontic rights (deontic stance), participants may also trust in their co-participants being aware of, and taking into account, these rights (deontic status). It is thus the complementarity and relative weight of deontic stances and deontic statuses that constitutes a fundamental mechanism by which people may engage in tough power negotiations without yet causing any overt face threats to their mutual solidarity. The study highlights the significance of face-to-face interaction as a locus of social order and seeks to enhance our understanding of the linkages between the local and wider aspects of social organization that pertain to people s interactional conduct.Väitöskirja käsittelee valtaa ja auktoriteettia ihmisten välisessä kasvokkaisessa vuorovaikutuksessa. Tutkimuksen keskiössä ovat vuorovaikutuksen osallistujien niin sanotut deonttiset oikeudet, joilla tarkoitetaan osallistujien oikeutta määrittää omaa ja toistensa tekemistä ja toimintaa. Työ tarjoaa yksityiskohtaisen kuvauksen vuorovaikutuksen osallistujien tavoista rakentaa ja ylläpitää deonttisia oikeuksiaan sekä neuvotella niistä keskustelun vuoro vuorolta etenevissä toimintajaksoissa. Tutkimuksen aineisto koostuu 15 työpaikkapalaverista, joissa papit ja kanttorit suunnittelevat tulevia yhteisiä työtehtäviään. Tutkimusmenetelmänä on keskustelunanalyysi. Väitöskirja koostuu kuudesta osajulkaisusta ja niiden yhteenvedosta. Tutkimus käsittelee vuorovaikutuksen osallistujien suuntautumista omiin ja toistensa deonttisiin oikeuksiin kahdesta eri näkökulmasta. Yhtäältä se kuvaa osallistujien keinoja ilmaista deonttisia oikeuksiaan implisiittisesti, esimerkiksi silloin, kun he keskustelevat tulevista tapahtumista ja osallistumisestaan niiden toteuttamiseen. Toisaalta tutkimus käsittelee osallistujien deonttisia oikeuksia vuorovaikutuksen resursseina; puhujien ei aina tarvitse tuoda esiin deonttisia oikeuksiaan, vaan he voivat muotoilla lausumansa ja muun ulkoisen käyttäytymisensä luottaen siihen, että heidän vuorovaikutuskumppaninsa ovat sekä näistä oikeuksista tietoisia että halukkaita ottamaan ne huomioon tulkitessaan puhujien lausumia ja muuta ulkoista käyttäytymistä. Tutkimus havainnollistaa, kuinka deonttisista oikeuksista neuvotteleminen perustuu oleellisesti näiden kahden näkökulman -- vuorovaikutuksen julkisten käytänteiden ja osallistujien päättelyitä koskevien odotusten -- väliselle yhteispelille; tämä yhteispeli tekee mahdolliseksi kovienkin valtataistelujen läpikäymisen ilman, että osallistujien keskinäinen solidaarisuus oleellisesti vaarantuu. Yleisellä tasolla tutkimus korostaa kasvokkaisen vuorovaikutuksen merkitystä sosiaalisen järjestyneisyyden kotina. Samalla se pyrkii lisäämään ymmärrystä siitä, kuinka tämän järjestyneisyyden paikalliset ja laajemmat ilmentymät kietoutuvat toisiinsa ihmisten keskinäisissä kohtaamisissa

Conversational practices promoting a discourse of agency for adults with intellectual disabilities

Conversational practices promoting a discourse of agency for adults with intellectual disabilitie