Cognition as Context (Whose Cognition?)

This is an electronic version of an article published in POTTER, J., 1998. Cognition as context (whose cognition?). Research on Language and Social Interaction, 31 pp. 29 - 44. Research on Language and Social Interaction is available online at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3101_2In a series of papers Emanuel Schegloff (1987, 1989, 1991, 1992a, b, 1997) has developed arguments concerning the coherence of analytic procedures for addressing entities that would traditionally have been glossed as ‘social structure’ or ‘social context’. He argues that ‘social context’ should be treated as relevant to analysis only insofar as it features as a participants’ concern; that is, only insofar as it is invoked, formulated, oriented to, or displayed in actual interaction. Research conclusions should be disciplined by attending to the procedural consequentiality of any claimed contextual particular. This paper will briefly review Schegloff’s argument and pick out some themes that have been highlighted by recent work in discursive psychology (Edwards and Potter, 1992, 1993; Edwards, 1997; Potter, 1996). In particular, it will emphasise the way that cognition, in some form or other, is often treated as a taken-for-granted background in discussions of context. In effect, cognition is treated as the inner stuff of perception, storage and inferences and it is set over against an outer reality of context, which might be events, settings and social structures. However, that reality is typically seen as having its effect via its cognitive perception, representations and processing. The paper will argue that cognition can be subject to some of the same analytic moves as context and that, indeed, in participants’ discourse things that analysts have traditionally glossed under the categories ‘cognition’ and ‘context’ often blur together. My suggestion is that ‘cognition’ and ‘reality’, conventionally the inner and the outer, can be treated in the same way as things which are formulated, attended to, and oriented to in discourse. In this way cognition becomes a topic of discursive study, but is respecified in the process. In the title of a recent paper, Schegloff (1997) asks the rhetorical question Whose Context? This highlights the questionable status of analysts versions of context vis a vis 3 those of participants. My subtitle – Whose Cognition? – raises a parallel question with respect to cognition

Memory in Interaction: An Analysis of Repeat Calls to a Home Birth Helpline

Drawing on a corpus of 80 calls to a Home Birth helpline, we use conversation analysis to analyze how callers and call takers display to one another that they are talking for a second or subsequent time. We focus in particular on the role of memory in these interactions. We show how caller and call taker are oriented to remembering at the beginning of calls as displayed in what we call the recognition-solicit pre-sequence, how participants are oriented to issues of forgetting and remembering during the course of repeat calls, and how remembering and forgetting are made manifest in interaction. Our analysis shows how the human capacity to remember and propensity to forget have reverberating implications in calling for help

Using Conversation Analysis in the Lab

In this introduction to the special issue of Research on Language and Social Interaction on “Experimental and Laboratory Approaches to Conversation Analysis,” I make the case that while naturalistic observation should take precedence over other methods, Conversation Analysis as a field should embrace a methodological pluralism that includes not only quantification but also experimentation and laboratory observation. Before I introduce the contributions to the special issue, I discuss the prohibition against such meth- ods in the field, situate naturalistic and laboratory research on a methodologi- cal continuum, and develop a series of arguments in favor of experimental and laboratory studies of interaction

Engaging terminally ill patients in end of life talk: How experienced palliative medicine doctors navigate the dilemma of promoting discussions about dying

Objective: To examine how palliative medicine doctors engage patients in end-of-life (hereon, EoL) talk. To examine whether the practice of “eliciting and responding to cues”, which has been widely advocated in the EoL care literature, promotes EoL talk. Design: Conversation analysis of video- and audio-recorded consultations. Participants: Unselected terminally ill patients and their companions in consultation with experienced palliative medicine doctors. Setting: Outpatient clinic, day therapy clinic, and inpatient unit of a single English hospice. Results: Doctors most commonly promoted EoL talk through open elaboration solicitations; these created opportunities for patients to introduce Ð then later further articulate Ð EoL considerations in such a way that doctors did not overtly ask about EoL matters. Importantly, the wording of elaboration solicitations avoided assuming that patients had EoL concerns. If a patient responded to open elaboration solicitations without introducing EoL considerations, doctors sometimes pursued EoL talk by switching to a less participatory and more presumptive type of solicitation, which suggested the patient might have EoL concerns. These more overt solicitations were used only later in consultations, which indicates that doctors give precedence to patients volunteering EoL considerations, and offer them opportunities to take the lead in initiating EoL talk. There is evidence that doctors treat elaboration of patients’ talk as a resource for engaging them in EoL conversations. However, there are limitations associated with labelling that talk as “cues” as is common in EoL communication contexts. We examine these limitations and propose “possible EoL considerations” as a descriptively more accurate term. Conclusions: Through communicating Ð via open elaboration solicitations Ð in ways that create opportunities for patients to volunteer EoL considerations, doctors navigate a core dilemma in promoting EoL talk: giving patients opportunities to choose whether to engage in conversations about EoL whilst being sensitive to their communication needs, preferences and state of readiness for such dialogue

Displays and claims of understanding in conversation by people with aphasia

Background: There is scope for additional research into the specific linguistic and sequential structures used in speech and language therapist (SLT)-led therapeutic conversations with people with aphasia (PWA). Whilst there is some evidence that SLTs use different conversational strategies than the partners of PWA, research to date has focussed mainly on measuring the effects of conversation-based therapies—not on analysing therapeutic conversations taking place between SLTs and PWA. Aims: This paper presents an analysis of the use of oh-prefacing by some PWA during therapeutic supported conversations with SLTs. Methods & Procedures: Normally occurring therapeutic conversations between SLTs and PWA after stroke were qualitatively analysed using Conversation Analysis. Interactions with five PWA were video-recorded, involving three different specialist stroke SLTs. Outcomes & Results: The analysis revealed a difference in the way some PWA use turns that display understanding (e.g., oh right) versus those that continue the conversation, merely claiming understanding (e.g., right). This use of oh-prefacing is similar to that described in the literature on typical conversations. In our data, SLTs are shown to treat oh-prefaced turns differently from non-oh-prefaced turns, by pursuing the topic in the latter, and progressing on to a new topic in the former. Conclusions: At least some PWA use oh-prefacing in the same way as non-language-impaired adults to display understanding of information versus merely claiming to understand. The SLTs in our data are shown to treat non-oh-prefaced turns as mere claims of understanding by providing the PWA with additional information, using supported conversation techniques, and pursuing additional same-topic talk, whereas oh-prefaced turns are treated as displays of understanding by being confirmed, and leading to changes of topic. This study is a first step in providing SLTs with a clearer understanding of the ways in which they are assessing the understanding of PWA, which may in turn help them better support non-therapy staff

The Organization of Turn-Taking in Pool Skate Sessions

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Research on Language and Social Interaction on 18th November 2015, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/08351813.2015.1090114.This study takes pool skating, where only one skater rides at a time, as an example of a turn-taking system, albeit one that is organized not through speech but through bodily actions. This allows us to revisit Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson’s (1974) famous “turn taking” paper—in particular, their initial broad conception of turn-taking systems as including activities other than the speech-exchange systems studied by conversation analysis. Despite the original declaration, non-speech turn-taking systems have evaded close scrutiny for the past four decades. By turning our attention to such a system here, this study makes two contributions: firstly, to the sociology of turn-organized activities (through a comparison of the central features of turn-taking for conversation with pool skating) and, secondly, to the study of how bodily actions can accomplish pre-beginnings (since in pool skate sessions, this is the place to settle the matter of turn allocation in order to avoid overlaps in riding)