When Claims of Understanding Are Less Than Affiliative

References

• Antaki, C. (2008). Formulations in psychotherapy. In A. Peräkylä, C. Antaki, S. Vehviläinen, & I. Leudar (Eds.), Conversation analysis and psychotherapy (pp. 26–42). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Antaki, C. (2012). Affiliative and disaffiliative candidate understandings. Discourse Studies, 14(5), 531–547. doi:10.1177/1461445612454074
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antaki, C., & Wetherell, M. (1999). Show concessions. Discourse Studies, 1, 7–27. doi:10.1177/1461445699001001002
   Google Scholar
• Asmuss, B. (2011). Proposing shared knowledge as a means of pursuing an agreement. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation (pp. 207–234). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beach, W. A. (1993). Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 325–352. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(93)90092-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolden, G. B., & Robinson, J. D. (2011). Soliciting accounts with why-interrogatives in conversation. Journal of Communication, 61, 94–119. doi:10.1111/jcom.2011.61.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coulter, J. (1979). The social construction of mind: Studies in ethnomethodology and linguistic philosophy. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2012). Exploring affiliation in the reception of conversation complaint stories. In A. Peräkylä & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Emotion in interaction (pp. 113–146). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Thompson, S. A. (2000). Concessive patterns in conversation. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause-condition-concession-contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp. 381–410). Berlin, Germany/New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Drew, P. (2003). Comparative analysis of talk-in-interaction in different institutional settings: A sketch. In P. J. Glenn, C. D. LeBaron, & J. Mandelbaum (Eds.), Studies in language and social interaction: In honor of Robert Hopper (pp. 293–308). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, D. (1995). Sacks and psychology. Theory & Psychology, 5(4), 579–596. doi:10.1177/0959354395054006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London, England: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, D. (2005). Moaning, whinging and laughing: The subjective side of complaints. Discourse Studies, 7, 5–29. doi:10.1177/1461445605048765
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• García, A. (1991). Dispute resolution without disputing: How the interactional organization of mediation hearings minimizes argument. American Sociological Review, 56, 818–835. doi:10.2307/2096258
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner, R. (2007). The right connections: Acknowledging epistemic progression in talk. Language in Society, 36, 319–341. doi:10.1017/S0047404507070169
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1988). Explanations as accounts. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analysing everyday explanation: A case book of methods (pp. 127–144). London, England: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (1988). On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems, 45, 418–441. doi:10.2307/800595
   Google Scholar
• Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on “I think.” Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Kärkkäinen, E. (2007). The role of I guess in conversational stance taking. In R. Engelbretson (Ed.), Stance taking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 183–219). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Keevallik, L. (2006). From discourse pattern to epistemic marker: Estonian (ei) tea ‘don’t know’. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 29(2), 173–200. doi:10.1017/S0332586506001570
   Google Scholar
• Koshik, I. (2005). Beyond rhetorical questions in everyday interaction. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   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). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Lindström, A., & Weatherall, A. (2015). Medical and life world contingencies in treatment proposals. Journal of Pragmatics, 78, 39–53. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindström, J., & Wide, C. (2005). Tracing the origins of a set of discourse particles: Swedish expressions of the type “you know.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 6(2), 211–236. doi:10.1075/jhp.6.2.04lin
   Google Scholar
• Lindwall, O., & Lymer, G. (2011). Uses of “understand” in science education. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 452–474. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Maynard, D. W. (2013). Defensive mechanisms: I-mean-prefaced utterances in complaint and other conversational sequences. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 128–233). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2011). Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 542–552. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muntigl, P., & Horvath, A. O. (2014). “I can see some sadness in your eyes”: When experiential therapists notice a client’s affectual display. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(2), 89–108. doi:10.1080/08351813.2014.900212
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niemi, J. (2014). Two “yeah but” formats in Finnish: The prior action engaging nii mut and the disengaging joo mut utterances. Journal of Pragmatics, 60, 54‒74.
   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 interaction: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality. Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London, England: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Potter, J. (2006). Cognition and conversation. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 131–140. doi:10.1177/1461445606059562
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1974). An analysis of the course of a joke’s telling in conversation. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking (pp. 337–354). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (Vol. I and II). G. Jefferson. (Ed.). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusion: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102, 161–216. doi:10.1086/230911
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2005). On complainability. Social Problems, 52, 449–476. doi:10.1525/sp.2005.52.4.449
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2010). Some other “Uh(m)”’s. Discourse Processes, 47, 130–174. doi:10.1080/01638530903223380
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sczcepek Reed, B. (2015). Managing the boundary between “yes” and “but”: Two ways of disaffiliating with German ja aber and jaber. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(1), 32–57. doi:10.1080/08351813.2015.993843
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, M. (2013). “I thought” initiated turns: Addressing discrepancies in first-hand and second-hand knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 318–330. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2013.09.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevanovic, M., & Svennevig, J. (2015). Introduction: Epistemics and deontics in conversational directives. Journal of Pragmatics, 78, 1–6. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.008
   Web of Science ®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, 29–55. doi:10.1080/08351810701691123
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weatherall, A. (2011). I don’t know as a pre-positioned hedge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 44(4), 317–337. doi:10.1080/08351813.2011.619310
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weatherall, A. (2015). “But whose side are you on?” Doing being independent in telephone-mediated dispute resolution. In F. Chevalier & J. Moore (Eds.), Producing and managing restricted activities. Avoidance and withholding in institutional interaction (pp. 151–179). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar