In:Discourses of Helping Professions:
Edited by Eva-Maria Graf, Marlene Sator and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 252] 2014
► pp. 13–31
How practitioners deal with their clients' "off-track" talk
Published online: 18 December 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.252.02ant
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.252.02ant
In institutional encounters where a client engages with a practitioner for advice or guidance, there is a phase in which the client may be expected to ‘tell their tale’ before the practitioner offers a response. In this chapter I shall analyse the kind of professional conversation which involves with a client being invited to describe a personal and indeed intimate problem, in order for the professional to offer their perspective (and possibly suggest a solution). The client’s problems here are matters of emotion, conflict or life-style, caused or sharpened by psychological disorder or disability – in other words, we shall be listening in to what the editors term as the ‘professional format’ of the counselling, personal-support and therapy consultation.
References (17)
Antaki, Charles, and Andrew Jahoda. 2010. “Psychotherapists’ Practices in Keeping a Session “On-track” in the Face of Clients’ “Off-track” Talk.” Communication & Medicine 7: 11–21.
Antaki, Charles, W.M.L. Finlay, and Chris Walton. 2009. “Choice for People with an Intellectual Impairment in Official Discourse and in Practice.” Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities 6 (4): 260–266.
Heritage, John. 1984. “A Change of State Token and Aspects of Its Sequential Organisation.” In Structures of Social Action, ed. by John. M. Atkinson, and John Heritage, 299–345.
Cambridge: CUP and Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.
Heritage, John, and D.R. Watson. 1979. “Formulations as Conversational Objects.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 123–162. New York: Irvington.
Jefferson, Gail. 1984. “On Stepwise Transition from Talk about a Trouble to Inappropriately Next-positioned Matters.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies of Conversation Analysis, ed. by John M. Atkinson, and John Heritage, 191–222. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Maynard, D.W., and C.L. Marlaire. 1992. “Good Reasons for Bad Testing Performance: The Interactional Substrate of Educational Exams.” Qualitative Sociology 15: 177–202.
Peräkylä, Annsi, Charles Antaki, Sanna Vehviläinen, and Ivan Leudar (eds). 2008. Conversation Analysis and Psychotherapy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peräkylä, Annsi, and Sanna Vehviläinen. 2003. “Conversation Analysis and the Professional Stocks of Interactional Knowledge.” Discourse & Society 14 (6): 727–750.
Sacks, Harvey. 1987. “On the Preferences for Contiguity and Agreement in Sequences in Conversation.” In Talk and Social Organisation, ed. by Graham Button, and John R. Lee, 54–69. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1979. “The Relevance of Repair to Syntax-for-Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics, Volume 12: Discourse and Syntax, ed. by Talmy Givon, 261–286. New York: Academic Press.
. 1982. “Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some Use of ’uh huh’ and Other Things that Come Between Sentences.” In Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk (Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics), ed. by Deborah Tannen, 71–93. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Williams, Val. 2010. Disability and Discourse: Analysing Inclusive Conversation with People with Intellectual Disabilities. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Rossen, Camilla Blach, Karen Nissen Schriver, Christel Tarber, Dorthe Vedel Nordahl, Grethe Thygesen Rasmussen, Ben Ong & Niels Buus
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 november 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.