On Displaying Empathy: Dilemma, Category, and Experience

References

• Antaki, C. (2009). Formulations in psychotherapy. In A. Perakyla, C. Antaki, S. Vehvilainen, & I. Leudar (Eds.), Conversation analysis and psychotherapy (pp. 26–42). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Aoki, H. (2008). Hearership as interactive practice: A multi-modal analysis of the response token nn and head nods (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Department of Applied Linguistics and TESL, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Arminen, I. (2004). Second stories: The salience of interpersonal communication for mutual help in Alcoholics Anonymous. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 319–347. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2003.07.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beach, W., & Dixson, C. N. (2001). Revealing moments: Formulating understandings of adverse experiences in a health appraisal interview. Social Science & Medicine, 52, 25–44. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00118-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolinger, D. (1957). Interrogative structures of American English. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clayman, S. E. (2002). Sequence and solidarity. In E. J. Lawler & S. R. Thye (Eds.), Advances in group processes: Group cohesion, trust, and solidarity (pp. 229–253). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.
   Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2009). A sequential approach to affect: The case of “disappointment.” In M. Haakana, M. Laakso, & J. Lindström (Eds.), Talk in interaction—Comparative dimensions (pp. 94–123). Helsinki, Finland: Finnish Literature Society.
   Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2012). Exploring affiliation in the reception of conversational complaint stories. In A. Peräkylä & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Emotion in interaction (pp. 113–146). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In J. C. McKinney & E. A. Tiryakian (Eds.), Theoretical sociology (337–366). New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Reprinted in Garfinkel, H. (Ed.). (1986). Ethnomethodological studies of work (pp. 160–193). London, England: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1978). Response cries. Language, 54(4), 787–815. doi:10.2307/413235
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (1984). Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. In M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 225–246). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (1996). Transparent vision. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 370–404). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2002). Time in action. Current Anthropology, 43, S19–SS35. doi:10.1086/339566
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPrA Articles in Pragmatics, 1(1), 1–55. doi:10.1075/iprapip.1.1.01goo
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1992). Assessments and the construction of context. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 147–190). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hashimoto, Y. (1997). A study of the sentence-final particle mon: How speakers use mono to express their rationale. Studies in Japanese Language and Culture, 7, 201–212.
   Google Scholar
• Hayano, K. (2013). Territories of knowledge in Japanese conversation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Hayashi, M., & Yoon, K.-E. (2009). Negotiating boundaries in talk. In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives (pp. 248–276). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hepburn, A., & Potter, J. (2007). Crying receipts: Time, empathy and institutional practice. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 40, 89–116. doi:10.1080/08351810701331299
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hepburn, A., & Potter, J. (2012). Crying and crying responses. In A. Peräkylä & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Emotion and interaction (pp. 194–211). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1984a). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 299–345). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1984b). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2002). The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1427–1446. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00072-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2011). Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 159–183). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Lindström, A. (2012). Knowledge, empathy and emotion in a medical encounter. In A. Peräkylä & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Emotion and affect in interaction (pp. 256–273). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 15–38. doi:10.1177/019027250506800103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Watson, D. R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 123–162). New York, NY: Irvington.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 219–248). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1981). On the articulation of topic in conversation. Final Report to the (British) Social Science Research Council, London, England.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1984). On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 346–369). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1988). On the sequential organization of turn-taking in ordinary conversation. Social Problems, 35, 418–441. doi:10.2307/800595
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (2015). Talking about troubles in conversation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G., & Lee, J. (1981). The rejection of advice: Managing the problematic convergence of a “troubles-telling” and a “service encounter.” Journal of Pragmatics, 5, 399–422. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(81)90026-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koshik, I. (2009). Questions and other prompts in teacher-student conferences. In A. Freed (Ed.), “Why do you ask?”: The function of questions in institutional discourse (pp. 159–186). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kupetz, M. (2014). Empathy displays as interactional achievements—Multimodal and sequential aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 61, 4–34. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kushida, S. (2014). Review session at the spring meeting of the Japan Association for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. [Review of Nishizaka, A., Hayano, K., Sunaga, M., Kuroshima, S. & Iwata, N. (2013). Kyookan no gihou. Tokyo, Japan: Tokai University.]
   Google Scholar
• Lerner, G. H. (2013). On the place of hesitating in delicate formulations: A turn-constructional infrastructure for collaborative indiscretion. In J. Sidnell, M. Hayashi, & G. Raymond (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lindström, A., & Sorjonen, M.-L. (2013). Affiliation in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 350–369). Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Nishizaka, A., Hayano, K., Sunaga, M., Kuroshima, S., & Iwata, N. (2013). Kyoukan no gihou: Fukushimaken ni okeru ashiyu borantia no kaiwa bunseki [Techniques for affiliation: Conversation analysis of footbath volunteer activity in Fukushima prefecture]. Tokyo, Japan: Keiso Shobo.
   Google Scholar
• Nishizaka, A., & Sunaga, M. (2015). Conversing while massaging: Multidimensional asymmetries of multiple activities in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(2), 200–229. doi:10.1080/08351813.2015.1025506
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, J., & Bolden, G. B. (2010). Preference organization of sequence-initiating actions: The case of explicit account solicitations. Discourse Studies, 12(4), 501–533. doi:10.1177/1461445610371051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossano, F. (2013). Gaze in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 308–329). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Ruusuvuori, J. (2005). “Empathy” and “sympathy” in action: Attending to patients’ troubles in Finnish homeopathic and general practice consultations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 204–222. doi:10.1177/019027250506800302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruusuvuori, J. (2007). Managing affect: Integration of empathy and problem-solving in health care encounters. Discourse Studies, 9(5), 597–622. doi:10.1177/1461445607081269
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruusuvuori, J. (2013). Emotion, affect and conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 308–329). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Ruusuvuori, J., & Voutilainen, L. (2009). Comparing affiliating responses to troubles-tellings in different types of health care encounters. In M. Haakana, M. Laakso, & J. Lindström (Eds.), Talk in interaction: Comparative dimensions (pp. 200–230). Helsinki, Finland: Finnish Literature Society.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1974). An analysis of the course of a joke’s telling in conversation. In R. Bauman & J. F. Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking (pp. 337–353). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vols. 1–2). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1972). Notes on conversational practice: Formulating place. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction. New York, NY: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1981: Analyzing discourse: text and talk (pp. 71–93). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2000). On granularity. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 715–720. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.715
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, VIII, 4, 289–327.
   Google Scholar
• Selting, M. (1994). Emphatic speech style—with special focus on the prosodic signaling of heightened emotive involvement in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 375–408. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(94)90116-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selting, M. (2010). Affectivity in conversational storytelling: An analysis of displays of anger or indignation in complaint stories. Pragmatics, 20(2), 229–277. doi:10.1075/prag.20.2.06sel
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharrock, W. (1974). On owning knowledge. In R. Turner (Ed.), Ethnomethodology (pp. 45–53). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Sorjonen, M.-L. (2001). Responding in conversation. A study of response particles in Finnish. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment and affiliation during story telling: When nodding is a token of preliminary affiliation. Research on Language in Social Interaction, 41, 31–57. doi:10.1080/08351810701691123
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., Mondada, L., & Steensig, J. (2011). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowing in conversation (pp. 3–24). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tanaka, H.(1999). Turn-taking in Japanese conversation: A study in grammar and interaction. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar