Why that now?” two kinds of conversational meaning∗

I would like to thank the following persons for their aid and comments on an earlier draft of this paper: Stephen Boggs, Charles Goodwin, Alan Howard, Patricia Lee, Anatole Lyovin, and Michael Moerman. Most especially, I would like to thank Emanuel Schegloff. This paper, in its present form, is a direct outcome of my conversations with him, although the opinions expressed herein are my own.

Abstract

In conversational analysis, the meaning of an utterance‐in‐conversation is the hearing given to the utterance by the participants, as displayed in their responses. This orientation to participants is very clear in conversational analytic studies and quite consistent with an interactional approach. What is perhaps less clear is that there is another way, within the framework of conversational analysis, of arriving at interpretations of utterances. These latter interpretations are referred to here as “conversationally grounded analyst's interpretations,” and they may be quite distinct from participant hearings. An exchange during a family therapy session is examined in detail to illustrate the notion of an analyst's interpretation. Finally, the usefulness of such a concept in the analysis of conversation is discussed.

Notes

I would like to thank the following persons for their aid and comments on an earlier draft of this paper: Stephen Boggs, Charles Goodwin, Alan Howard, Patricia Lee, Anatole Lyovin, and Michael Moerman. Most especially, I would like to thank Emanuel Schegloff. This paper, in its present form, is a direct outcome of my conversations with him, although the opinions expressed herein are my own.