Responding to What Is Left Implicit: Psychotherapists’ Formulations and Understanding Checks After Clients’ Turn-Final Että (“That/So”)

References

• Antaki, C. (2012). Affiliative and disaffiliative candidate understandings. Discourse Studies, 14, 531–547. doi:10.1177/1461445612454074
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antaki, C., Barnes, R., & Leudar, I. (2005). Diagnostic formulations in psychotherapy. Discourse Studies, 7, 627–647. doi:10.1177/1461445605055420
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benjamin, T. (2013). Signaling trouble: On the linguistic design of other-initiation of repair in English conversation. Unpublished dissertation, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Bergmann, J. (1992). Veiled morality: Notes on discretion in psychiatry. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional setting (pp. 37–162). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beutler, L. E., Moleiro, C., & Talebi, H. (2002). Resistance in psychotherapy: What conclusions are supported by research. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 207–217. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1097-4679
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolden, G. (2010). “Articulating the unsaid” via and-prefaced formulations of others’ talk. Discourse Studies, 12, 5–32. doi:10.1177/1461445609346770
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enfield, N. (2013). Relationship thinking: Agency, enchrony and human sociality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1955). On face work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 18, 213–231.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hakulinen, A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Insisting on “my side”: Siis-prefaced utterances in Finnish. Journal of Pragmatics, 75, 111–130. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2014.10.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Watson, R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language (pp. 123–162). New York, NY: Irvington Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kitzinger, C. (2013). Repair. In T. J. Sidnell – T. Stivers (Eds.) Handbook of conversation analysis, (pp. 229-256). Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Koivisto, A. (2011) Sanomattakin selvää? Ja, mutta ja että puheenvuoron lopussa. [Goes without saying? Finnish conjunctions ja, mutta and että in turn-final position] ( Unpublished doctoral dissertation [monograph]). Department of Finnish, Finno-Ugrian and Scandinavian Studies, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
   Google Scholar
• Koivisto, A. (2012). Discourse patterns for turn-final conjunctions. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1254–1272. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koivisto, A. (2014). Utterances ending in the conjunction että: Complete or to be continued? In J. Kalliokoski & H. L. Visapää Sorva (Eds.), Contexts of subordination: Cognitive, typological, and discourse perspectives (pp. 223–244). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Koivisto, A., Laury, R., & Seppänen, E.-L. (2011). Syntactic and actional characteristics of Finnish että-clauses. In R. Laury & R. Suzuki (Eds.), Subordination in conversation: A crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 69–102). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laury, R., & Seppänen, E.-L. (2008). Clause combining, interaction, evidentiality, participation structure, and the conjunction-particle continuum: The Finnish että. In R. Laury (Ed.), Crosslinguistic studies of clause combining: The multifunctionality of conjunctions (pp. 153–178). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Mazeland, H., & Huiskes, M. (2001). Dutch “but” as a sequential conjunction. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 141–169). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Muntigl, P., & Zabala, L. H. (2008). How clients get prompted to say more during psychotherapy. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41, 187–226. doi:10.1080/08351810802028738
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peräkylä, A. (2011). After interpretation: Third position utterances in psychoanalysis. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 44, 288–316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peräkylä, A. (2015). From narcissism to face work: Two views on the self in social interaction. American Journal of Sociology, 121, 445–474. doi:10.1086/682282
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peräkylä, A., & Silverman, D. (1991). Owning experience: Describing the experience of other persons. Text, 11, 441–480.
   Google Scholar
• Pomerantz, A. (1984). Giving a source or basis: The practice in conversation of telling “how I know.” Journal of Pragmatics, 8, 607–625. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(84)90002-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymond, G. (2004). Prompting action: The stand-alone “so” in ordinary conversation. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 37, 185–218. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3702_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. (1995). Discourse as an interactional achievement III: The omnirelevance of action. Reseach on Language and Social Interaction, 28, 185–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: 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. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A., & Lerner, G. H. (2009). Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to wh-questions. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 42, 91–115. doi:10.1080/08351810902864511
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Seppänen, E.-L., & Laury, R. (2007). Complement clauses as turn continuations: The Finnish että-clause. Pragmatics, 17, 553–572. doi:10.1075/prag.17.4.06sep
   Google Scholar
• Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sorjonen, M.-L. (2001). Responding in conversation: A study of response particles in Finnish. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Sorjonen, M.-L. (2015, March). Implying responsibilities: Prefacing a candidate understanding. Paper presented at Workshop on Other-Initiated Repair, University of Helsinki.
   Google Scholar
• Stiles, W. B. (2002). Assimilation of problematic experiences. In J. C. Norcross (Ed.), Psychotherapy relationships that work: Therapist contributions and responsiveness to patients (pp. 357–365). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Hayashi, M. (2010). Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society, 39, 1–25. doi:10.1017/S0047404509990637
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, 35, 367–392.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vehviläinen, S. (2003). Preparing and delivering interpretations in psychoanalytic interaction. Text, 23, 573–606.
   Google Scholar
• Vehviläinen, S. (2008). Identifying and managing resistance in psychoanalytic interaction. In A. Peräkylä, C. Antaki, S. Vehviläinen, & I. Leudar (Eds.), Conversation analysis and psychotherapy (pp. 120–138). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Voutilainen, L., Peräkylä, A., & Ruusuvuori, J. (2010). Recognition and interpretation: Responding to emotional experience in psychotherapy. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 43, 85–107. doi:10.1080/08351810903474799
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, T., Drew, P., & Local, J. (2011). Responding indirectly. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2434–2451. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2011.02.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiste, E., & Peräkylä, A. (2013). A comparative conversation analytic study of formulations in psychoanalysis and cognitive psychotherapy. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 46, 299–321. doi:10.1080/08351813.2013.839093
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiste, E., Voutilainen, L., & Peräkylä, A. (2015). Epistemic asymmetries in psychotherapy interaction: Therapists’ practices for displaying access to clients’ inner experiences. Sociology of Health and Illness, 38(4), 645–661. doi:10.1111/1467-9566.12384
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar