Abstract
This paper argues that conversation analysis has largely neglected the fact that meaning in interaction relies on inferences to a high degree. Participants treat each other as cognitive agents, who imply and infer meanings, which are often consequential for interactional progression. Based on the study of audio- and video-recordings from German talk-in-interaction, the paper argues that inferences matter to social interaction in at least three ways. They can be explicitly formulated; they can be (conventionally) indexed, but not formulated; or they may be neither indexed nor formulated yet would be needed for the correct understanding of a turn. The last variety of inferences usually remain tacit, but are needed for smooth interactional progression. Inferences in this case become an observable discursive phenomenon if misunderstandings are treated by the explication of correct (accepted) and wrong (unaccepted) inferences. The understanding of referential terms, analepsis, and ellipsis regularly rely on inferences. Formulations, third-position repairs, and fourth-position explications of erroneous inferences are practices of explicating inferences. There are conventional linguistic means like discourse markers, connectives, and response particles that index specific kinds of inferences. These practices belong to a larger class of inferential practices, which play an important role for indexing and accomplishing intersubjectivity in talk in interaction.
References
Antaki, Charles. 2008. Formulations in psychotherapy. In Anssi Peräkylä, Charles Antaki, Sanna Vehviläinen & Ivan Leudar (eds.), Conversation analysis and psychotherapy, 26-42. Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/CBO9780511490002.003Search in Google Scholar
Antaki, Charles, Rebecca Barnes & Ivan Leudar. 2005. Diagnostic formulations in psychotherapy. Discourse Studies 7(6). 627-647.10.1177/1461445605055420Search in Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2010. Defining pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/CBO9780511777912Search in Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2014. Sentences and their symbiotic guests: Notes on analepsis from the perspective of online syntax. Pragmatics 24(3). 533-560.10.1075/prag.24.3.05aueSearch in Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2015. The temporality of language in interaction: Projection and latency. In Arnulf Deppermann & Susanne Günthner (eds.), Temporality in interaction, 27-56. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/slsi.27.01aueSearch in Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 1994. Conversational Impliciture. Mind & Language 9(2). 124-162.10.1111/j.1468-0017.1994.tb00220.xSearch in Google Scholar
Betz, Emma. 2014. Confirming and agreeing: Different uses of responsive genau in German. Paper presented at the International Conference on Conversation Analysis (ICCA14), University of California, Los Angeles, 25-29 June.Search in Google Scholar
Betz, Emma & Arnulf Deppermann. 2018. Indexing priority of position: The response particle eben in German discourse. Research on Language and Social Interaction 51(2).10.1080/08351813.2018.1449449Search in Google Scholar
Bilmes, Jack. 1993. Ethnomethodology, culture and implicature: Toward an empirical pragmatics. Pragmatics 3(4). 387-409.10.1075/prag.3.4.02bilSearch in Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 1988. ‘So’ as a constraint on relevance. In Ruth M. Kempson (ed.), Mental representations: The interface between language and reality, 183-195. Cambridge: CUP.Search in Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/CBO9780511486456Search in Google Scholar
Bolden, Galina. 2010. “Articulating the unsaid” via and-prefaced formulations of others’ talk. Discourse Studies 12(1). 5-32.10.1177/1461445609346770Search in Google Scholar
Bruner, Jerome S. 1957. Going beyond the information given. In Howard E. Gruber, Kenneth R. Hammond & Richard Jessor (eds.), Contemporary approaches to cognition, 41-69. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.Search in Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470754603Search in Google Scholar
Coulter, Jeff. 2006. Language without mind. In Hedwig te Molder & Jonathan Potter (eds.), Conversation and cognition, 79-92. Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/CBO9780511489990.004Search in Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Dagmar Barth-Weingarten. 2011. A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. English translation and adaptation of Selting, Margret et al. (2009): Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2. Gesprächsforschung, Discourse and Conversation Analysis 12. 1-51 (www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de).Search in Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2009. Verstehensdefizit als Antwortverpflichtung: Interaktionale Eigenschaften der Modalpartikel denn in Fragen. In Susanne Günthner & Jörg Bücker (eds.), Grammatik im Gespräch. Konstruktionen der Selbst- und Fremdpositionierung, 23-56. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110213638.21Search in Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2011. Notionalization: The transformation of descriptions into categorizations. Human Studies 34(2). 155-18110.1007/s10746-011-9186-9Search in Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2012. How does ‘cognition’ matter to the analysis of talk-in-interaction? Language Sciences 34(6). 746-767.10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.013Search in Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2015. When recipient design fails: Egocentric turn-design of instructions in driving school lessons leading to breakdowns of intersubjectivity. Gesprächsforschung, Discourse and Conversation Analysis 16. 63-101. http://www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de/dateien/heft2015/ga-deppermann.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2018. Changes in turn-design over interactional histories - the case of instructions in driving school lessons. In Arnulf Deppermann & Jürgen Streeck (eds.), Time in embodied interaction. 293-324 Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.293.09depSearch in Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf & Henrike Helmer. 2013. Zur Grammatik des Verstehens im Gespräch: Inferenzen anzeigen und Handlungskonsequenzen ziehen mit also und dann. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 32(1). 1-40.10.1515/zfs-2013-0001Search in Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf & Julia Kaiser. In prep. Achieving the intersubjectivity of action and enabling coordination: Intention ascriptions in second position with du willst / sie wollen (‘you want’) in German. In Arnulf Deppermann & Michael Haugh (eds.), Action ascription. Cambridge: CUP.Search in Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf & Silke Reineke. Accepted. Indexing a discrepant assumption with German ich dachte (‘I thought’): Uses in different sequential environments. Functions of Language.Search in Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf & Thomas Schmidt. 2014. Gesprächsdatenbanken als methodisches Instrument der Interaktionalen Linguistik - Eine exemplarische Untersuchung auf Basis des Korpus FOLK in der Datenbank für Gesprochenes Deutsch (DGD2). Mitteilungen des Deutschen Germanistenverbandes 1/2014, 4-17.Search in Google Scholar
Drew, Paul. 1992. Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, 470-520. Cambridge: CUP.Search in Google Scholar
Drew, Paul. 1997. “Open” class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of trouble in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 28. 69-101.10.1016/S0378-2166(97)89759-7Search in Google Scholar
Drew, Paul. 2003. Comparative analysis of talk-in-interaction in different institutional settings: A sketch. In Phil Glenn, Curtis LeBaron & Jenny Mandelbaum (eds.), Studies in language and social interaction, 293-308. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick & Jack Sidnell. 2017. The concept of ‘action’. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/9781139025928Search in Google Scholar
Gibbs, Ray W. 1994. The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: CUP.Search in Google Scholar
Golato, Andrea & Emma Betz. 2008. German ach and achso in repair uptake: Resources to sustain or remove epistemic asymmetry. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 27. 7-37.10.1515/ZFSW.2008.002Search in Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Speech Acts, 41-58. New York: Academic.10.1163/9789004368811_003Search in Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1978. Dialect and conversational inference in urban communication. Language and Society 7. 393-409.10.1017/S0047404500005790Search in Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/CBO9780511611834Search in Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2008 The place of intention in the interactional accomplishment of implicature. In Istvan Kecskes & Jacob Mey (eds.), Intention, common ground and the egocentric speaker-hearer, 45-86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2013. Speaker meaning and accountability in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 48(1). 41-56.10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.009Search in Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2015. Approaches to implicature. In Michael Haugh (ed.), Im/Politeness implicatures, 41-85. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110240078.41Search in Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2017. Implicatures and the inferential substrate. In Piotr Cap & Marta Dynel (eds.), Implicitness: From lexis to discourse, 281-304. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.276.13hauSearch in Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael & Kasia M. Jaszczolt. 2012. Speaker intentions and intentionality. In Keith Allan & Kasia M. Jaszczolt (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics, 87-112. Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/CBO9781139022453.006Search in Google Scholar
Helmer, Henrike. 2016. Analepsen in der Interaktion. Semantische und sequenzielle Eigenschaften von Topik-Drop im gesprochenen Deutsch. Heidelberg: Winter.Search in Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action, 299-345. Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/CBO9780511665868.020Search in Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1985. Analyzing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for an “overhearing” audience. In Teun van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Vol. 3: Discourse and Dialogue, 95-117. London: Academic. Search in Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1). 1-29.10.1080/08351813.2012.646684Search in Google Scholar
Heritage, John & Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-ininteraction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68(1). 15-38.10.1177/019027250506800103Search in Google Scholar
Heritage, John & D. R. Watson. 1979. Formulations as conversational objects. In George Psathas (ed.), Everyday language, 123-162. New York: Irvington.Search in Google Scholar
Heritage, John & D. R. Watson. 1980. Aspects of the properties of formulations in natural conversations: Some instances analyzed. Semiotica 30(3-4). 245-262.10.1515/semi.1980.30.3-4.245Search in Google Scholar
Hopper, Robert. 2006. A cognitive agnostic in conversation analysis: When do strategies affect spoken interaction? In Hedwig te Molder & Jonathan Potter (eds.), Conversation and cognition, 134-158. Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/CBO9780511489990.007Search in Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Ludger. 1999. Ellipse und Analepse. In Jochen Rehbein & Angelika Redder (eds.), Grammatik und mentale Prozesse, 69-91. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Search in Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago, IL: Chicago UP.Search in Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 2004. Implicature. In Laurence Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 3-28. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1111/b.9780631225485.2005.00003.xSearch in Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 2012. Implying and inferring. In: Keith Allan & Kasia M. Jaszczolt (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics, 69-86. Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/CBO9781139022453.005Search in Google Scholar
Kaiser, Julia. 2016. Reformulierungsindikatoren im gesprochenen Deutsch. Die Benutzung der Ressourcen DGD und FOLK für gesprächsanalytische Zwecke. Gesprächsforschung / Discourse and Conversation Analysis 17. 196-230.Search in Google Scholar
Levinson, Steven C. 2000. Presumptive meanings. Cambridge: CUP. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Lynch, Michael & Jean Wong. 2016. Reverting to a hidden interactional order: Epistemics, informationism, and conversation analysis. Discourse Studies 18(5). 526-549.10.1177/1461445616658199Search in Google Scholar
Noveck, Ira & Dan Sperber. 2007. The why and how of experimental pragmatics: The case of ‘scalar inferences’. In Noel Burton-Roberts (ed.), Advances in Pragmatics, 184-212. London: Palgrave.10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_10Search in Google Scholar
Oloff, Florence. 2017. Genau als redebeitragsinterne, responsive, sequenzschließende oder sequenzstrukturierende Bestätigungspartikel im Gespräch. In Hardarik Blühdorn, Arnulf Deppermann, Henrike Helmer & Thomas Spranz-Fogasy (eds.), Diskursmarker im Deutschen. Reflexionen und Analysen, 183-205. Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Search in Google Scholar
Proske, Nadine. 2014. °h ach KOMM; hör AUF mit dem klEInkram. Die Partikel komm zwischen Interjektion und Diskursmarker. Gesprächsforschung 15. 121-160. http://www.gespraechsforschung-online.de/fileadmin/dateien/heft2014/ga-proske.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2004. Prompting action: The stand-alone ‘so’ in sequences of talk-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 37(2). 185-218.10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_4Search in Google Scholar
Récanati, François. 2002. Unarticulated constituents. Linguistics and Philosophy 25. 299-345.10.1023/A:1015267930510Search in Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. Vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1968. Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist 70(6). 1075-1095.10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030Search in Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1997. Third Turn Repair. In Gregory R. Guy, Crawford Feagin, Deborah Schiffrin & John Baugh (eds.), Towards a social science of language: Papers in honor of William Labov. Vol. 2: Social interaction and discourse structures, 31-40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.128.05schSearch in Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/CBO9780511791208Search in Google Scholar
Schulz, Jochen. 2012. Abtönungspartikeln - dargestellt am Beispiel des Ausdrucks wohl. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Search in Google Scholar
Schwarz-Friesel, Monika, Manfred Consten & Mareile Knees. 2007. The function of complex anaphors in texts. In Monika10.1075/slcs.86Search in Google Scholar
Schwarz-Friesel, Manfred Consten & Mareile Knees (eds.), Anaphora in text, 81-102. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Schwarz-Friesel, Monika & Manfred Consten. 2011. Reference and anaphora. In Wolfram Bublitz & Neal R. Norrick (eds.), Foundations of pragmatics, 347-372. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110214260.347Search in Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In Peter Cole & John Morgan (eds.), Syntax & semantics. Vol. 3: Speech acts, 59-82. New York: Academic.10.1163/9789004368811_004Search in Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack & Nick J. Enfield. 2014. The ontology of action, in interaction. In Nick J. Enfield, Paul Kockelman & Jack Sidnell (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic anthropology, 423-446. Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/CBO9781139342872.020Search in Google Scholar
Smith, Michael Sean. 2013. “I thought” initiated turns: Addressing discrepancies in first-hand and second-hand knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics 57. 318-330.10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.006Search in Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995[1986]. Relevance: Communication and cognition, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
te Molder, Hedwig & Jonathan Potter (eds.). 2006. Conversation and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge UP.10.1017/CBO9780511489990Search in Google Scholar
Walker, Traci, Paul Drew & John Local. 2011. Responding indirectly. Journal of Pragmatics 43(9). 2434-2451.10.1016/j.pragma.2011.02.012Search in Google Scholar
Zinken, Jörg. In prep. Action ascription and the constitution of lexical senses. In Arnulf Deppermann & Michael Haugh (eds.), Action ascription. Cambridge: CUP.Search in Google Scholar
© 2018 Arnulf Deppermann, published by De Gruyter
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
