Chapter published in:
Perception Metaphors
Edited by Laura J. Speed, Carolyn O'Meara, Lila San Roque and Asifa Majid
[Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 19] 2019
► pp. 253–274

Evidential vindication in next turn

Using the retrospective “see?” in conversation

Perception verbs are frequent in conversation across diverse languages and cultures. This chapter presents a case study of a recurrent but previously undocumented use of the perception verb see in everyday English conversation. Using conversation analysis, the chapter explicates the use of “See?” – the verb see produced with rising intonation as a possibly complete turn-constructional unit – as claim of evidential vindication. With “See?” a speaker claims a just prior turn, action, or event as support for a previous assertive action. The analysis demonstrates that the practice exploits two distinct forms of sequence organisation, adjacency pairs and retro-sequences, and reflects on the fit between the perception verb see and the action it implements within this practice.
Keywords: conversation analysis, sequence organisation, retro-sequences, social action, perception verbs, perceptual metaphor, evidence, disputes, English
Published online: 21 February 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.19.13ken
References

References

Aikhenvald, A. Y.
(2006) Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y., & Storch, A.
(2013) Linguistic expression of perception and cognition: A typological glimpse. In A. Y. Aikhenvald, & A. Storch (Eds.), Perception and cognition in language and culture (pp. 1–46). Leiden: Brill.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E.
(2012) Some truths and untruths about final intonation in conversational questions. In J. P. de Ruiter (Ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives (pp. 123–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Curl, T. S.
(2006) Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(8), 1257–1280.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, D.
(2000) Extreme case formulations: Softeners, investment, and doing nonliteral. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(4), 347–373.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, N., & Wilkins, D.
(2000) In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language 76(3): 546–592.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geluykens, R.
(1988) On the myth of rising intonation in polar questions. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(4), 467–485.Crossref
Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B.
(2017) Transcribing for social research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J.
(2002) Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In C. E Ford, B. A. Fox, & S. A Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 1–28). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013) Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies, 15(5), 551–578.Crossref
Heritage, J., & Raymond, G.
(2005) The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 15–38.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoey, E. M., & Kendrick, K. H.
(2017) Conversation analysis. In P. Hagoort & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), Research Methods in Psycholinguistics and the Neurobiology of Language. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. H.
(2006) Linguistic Form and Social Action: The Use of “See” in Conversational Interaction (Master’s thesis). University of California, Santa Barbara, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. H., & Drew, P.
(2016) Recruitment: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(1), 1–19.Crossref
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
(2013) Action formation and ascription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 101–130). Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C., & Majid, A.
(2014) Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind & Language, 29(4), 407–427.Crossref
Pollner, M.
(1987) Mundane reason: Reality in everyday life and sociological discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A.
(1980) Telling my side: “Limited access” as a “fishing” device. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3), 186–198.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1984) Giving a source or basis: the practice in conversation of telling “how I know”. Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 607–625.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1986) Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human studies, 9(2), 219–229.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1989) Giving evidence as a conversational practice. In D. T. Helm, W. T. Anderson, A. J. Meehan & A. W. Rawls (Eds.), The interactional order: New directions in the study of social order (pp. 103–115). New York, NY: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G.
(1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H.
(1992) Lectures on conversation. (G. Jefferson, Ed.) (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
San Roque, L., Kendrick, K. H., Norcliffe, E., Brown, P., Defina, R., Dingemanse, M., Dirksmeyer, T., Enfield, N. J., Floyd, S., Hammond, J., Rossi, G., Tufvesson, S., Van Putten, S., & Majid, A.
(2015) Vision verbs dominate in conversation across cultures, but the ranking of non-visual verbs varies. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 31–60.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
San Roque, L., Kendrick, K. H., Norcliffe, E., & Majid, A.
(2018) Universal meaning extensions of perception verbs are grounded in interaction. Cognitive Linguistics, 29(3), 371–406. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.
(1996) Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102(1), 161–216.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) On complainability. Social Problems, 52(4), 449–476.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schutz, A.
(1962) Common-sense and scientific interpretation of human action. In M. Natanson (Ed.), Collected Papers I (pp. 3–47). Springer Netherlands.Crossref
Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T.
(Eds.) (2013) The handbook of conversation analysis. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J.
(2007) ‘Look’-prefaced turns in first and second position: launching, interceding and redirecting action. Discourse Studies, 9(3), 387–408.Crossref
Stokes, D., & Biggs, S.
(2014) The dominance of the visual. In D. Stokes, M. Matthen, & S. Biggs (Eds.), Perception and its modalities. Oxford Scholarship Online.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E.
(1990) From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vázquez Carranza, A.
(2014) Sequential markers in Mexican Spanish talk: A conversation-analytic study (Ph.D. thesis). University of Essex.Google Scholar
(2015) Análisis de oye como marcador secuencial y de acción en la conversación. Estudios de Lingüística Aplicada, 61, 73–103.Google Scholar
Viberg, Å.
(1983) The verbs of perception: A typological study. Linguistics, 21, 123–162.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
(2010) Experience, evidence, and sense: The hidden cultural legacy of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar