Article published in:
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

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
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.27.02dep
References
Argelander, Hermann
1991 Der Text und seine Verknüpfungen: Studien zur psychoanalytischen Methode. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle 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, http://​www​.gespraechsforschung​-ozs​.de​/heft2013​/ga​-betz​.pdf.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H.
1996 Using Language. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf
2011 “Notionalizations: The Transformation of Descriptions into Categorizations.” Human Studies 34 (2): 155–181. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 “How Does ‘Cognition’ Matter to the Analysis of Talk-in-Interaction?” Language Sciences 34 (6): 746–767. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Golato, Andrea
2010 “Marking Understanding versus Receipting Information in Talk: achso and ach in German Interaction.” Discourse Studies 12 (2): 147–176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
2013 “The Co-operative, Transformative Organization of Human Action and Knowledge.” Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1): 8–23. CrossrefGoogle 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: http://​www​.verlag​-gespraechsforschung​.de​/2011​/helmer​.htm.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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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: http://​www​.verlag​-gespraechsforschung​.de​/2002​/fiehler​.html.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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H.
1991 “On the Syntax of Sentences in Progress.” Language in Society 20: 441–458. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 “Understanding as an Embodied, Situated and Sequential Achievement in Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 542–552. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Martin J. and Simon Garrod
2004 “Toward a Mechanistic Psychology of Dialogue.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27 (2): 169–190. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig
(eds.) 2011 The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Svennevig, Jan
2004 “Other-Repetition as Display of Hearing, Understanding and Emotional Stance.” Discourse Studies 6 (4): 489–516. CrossrefGoogle 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

Cited by 3 other publications

No author info given
2019.  In Conversation-analytic transcription of Arabic-German talk-in-interaction [Working Papers in Corpus Linguistics and Digital Technologies: Analyses and Methodology, 2], Crossref logo
Helmer, Henrike
2020. How Do Speakers Define the Meaning of Expressions? The Case of German x heißt y (“x means y”). Discourse Processes 57:3 ► pp. 278 ff. Crossref 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. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 february 2021. 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.