Article published In: Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 4:1 (2015) ► pp.86–100
The Interaction Tool
Published online: 17 August 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.4.1.08koo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.4.1.08koo
For professionals such as doctors, teachers, or different kinds of counsellors, talking with their clients is a major part of their profession. Professionals and clients give and ask information until they reach a state of mutual knowledge or understanding. This paper argues that for this talk they use a tool, the machinery of social interaction, with characteristics that influence the outcomes of their talk. One characteristic is the normative organization of interaction through which the contribution of one participant puts restrictions on the range of possible follow-up contributions of another participant. This may cause client behavior that does not align with the institutional aims of the professional. A second trait is that interactants have no access to each other’s cognitions such as intentions, interpretations, knowing, and understanding. Professionals should thus be aware that what clients say has a relatively loose relation with what they know and understand.
References (18)
Englert, C. (2010). Questions and responses in Dutch conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 421, 2666–2684.
Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in action. Interaction, identities, and institutions. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of story telling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 219–248). New York: Academic Press.
Koole, T. (2010). Displays of epistemic access. Student responses to teacher explanations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(2), 183–209.
. (2012). Conversation analysis and education. In C.A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 977–982). Oxford: Blackwell.
Koole, T., & Verberg, N. (submitted). Aligning caller and call-taker: The opening phrase of Dutch emergency calls.
Mondada, L. (2011). Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 431, 542–552.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 57–102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pomerantz, A., & Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 210–228). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939–967.
Ruiter, J.P. de (Ed.) (2012). Questions. Formal, functional and interactional perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E.A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 981, 1295–1345.
. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Seuren, Lucas M.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. 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.