Book contents
- Qualitative Studies of Silence
- Qualitative Studies of Silence
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction: A Turn to Silence
- 1 Literal and Metaphorical Silences in Rhetoric: Examples from the Celebration of the 1974 Revolution in the Portuguese Parliament
- 2 Seeing Silenced Agendas in Medical Interaction: A Conversation Analytic Case Study
- 3 Listening to the Sound of Silence: Methodological Reflections on Studying the Unsaid
- 4 Social Silences: Conducting Ethnographic Research on Racism in the Americas
- 5 Intimate Silences and Inequality: Noticing the Unsaid through Triangulation
- 6 Silence in the Court: Moral Exclusion at the Intersection of Disability, Race, Sexuality, and Methodology
- 7 Silencing Self and Other through Autobiographical Narratives
- 8 Gendering the Unsaid and the Unsayable
- 9 The Language Ideology of Silence and Silencing in Public Discourse
- 10 Propaganda by Omission: The Case of Topical Silence
- 11 Silencing Whistleblowers
- 12 Between Sound and Silence: The Inaudible and the Unsayable in the History of the First World War
- 13 Affect and the Unsaid: Silences, Impasses, and Testimonies to Trauma
- 14 The Unsaid and the Unheard
- 15 Conclusion: Topographies of the Said and Unsaid
- Index
- References
2 - Seeing Silenced Agendas in Medical Interaction: A Conversation Analytic Case Study
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 June 2019
Book contents
- Qualitative Studies of Silence
- Qualitative Studies of Silence
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction: A Turn to Silence
- 1 Literal and Metaphorical Silences in Rhetoric: Examples from the Celebration of the 1974 Revolution in the Portuguese Parliament
- 2 Seeing Silenced Agendas in Medical Interaction: A Conversation Analytic Case Study
- 3 Listening to the Sound of Silence: Methodological Reflections on Studying the Unsaid
- 4 Social Silences: Conducting Ethnographic Research on Racism in the Americas
- 5 Intimate Silences and Inequality: Noticing the Unsaid through Triangulation
- 6 Silence in the Court: Moral Exclusion at the Intersection of Disability, Race, Sexuality, and Methodology
- 7 Silencing Self and Other through Autobiographical Narratives
- 8 Gendering the Unsaid and the Unsayable
- 9 The Language Ideology of Silence and Silencing in Public Discourse
- 10 Propaganda by Omission: The Case of Topical Silence
- 11 Silencing Whistleblowers
- 12 Between Sound and Silence: The Inaudible and the Unsayable in the History of the First World War
- 13 Affect and the Unsaid: Silences, Impasses, and Testimonies to Trauma
- 14 The Unsaid and the Unheard
- 15 Conclusion: Topographies of the Said and Unsaid
- Index
- References
Summary
Conversation analysis (CA) is a paradigm for studying social interaction, investigating talk in its sequential context. The concept of adjacency (the relationship between two turns uttered by different speakers one after the other) is a powerful resource for participants to make sense of what each speaker is doing, both through talk and its absence. This concept enables us to pinpoint the relevant absence of talk of a specific kind. Drawing on three key conversation analytic tools – sequence organization, preference organization and turn taking – this chapter demonstrates how CA can be used to get a handle on the"unsaid." We present a case study from a neurology consultation in which an adult patient’s mother and neurologist work to process their contrasting diagnostic agendas. We demonstrate how CA can reveal (1) what is relevantly absent in a sequence of talk; (2) the unsaid in what is articulated, and (3) the (often subtle) silencing of another through particular interactional "moves." We show that the underlying conflict seldom rises to the surface of the interaction; each speaker attempts to maintain social bonds while s advancing their own objectives.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Qualitative Studies of SilenceThe Unsaid as Social Action, pp. 38 - 58Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Bolden, G. B. (2010). ‘Articulating the unsaid’ via and-prefaced formulations of others’ talk. Discourse Studies, 12(1), 5–32.Google Scholar
Button, G., & Casey, N. (1984). Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In Atkinson, J. M.& Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 167–190). Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Chevalier, F. H., & Moore, J. (Eds.). (2015). Producing and managing restricted activities: Avoidance and withholding in institutional interaction (Vol. 255). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Curl, T. S. (2006). Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(8), 1257–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curl, T. S. & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(2), 129–153.Google Scholar
Davidson, J. (1984). Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 102–128). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dickson, J. M., Peacock, M., Grünewald, R. A., Howlett, S., Bissell, P., & Reuber, M. (2017). Non-epileptic attack disorder: The importance of diagnosis and treatment. British Medical Journal: Case Reports, 2017. Retrieved from http://casereports.bmj.com/content/2017/bcr-2016–218278.abstractCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. (2012). Turn design. In Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 131–149). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (Eds.), Talk at work (pp. 3–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gardner, R. (1997). The listener and minimal responses in conversational interaction. Prospect, 12(2), 12–32.Google Scholar
Gill, V., & Maynard, D. (2006). Explaining illness: Patients’ proposals and physicians’ responses. In Heritage, J. & Maynard, D. W. (Eds.), Communication in medical care: Interaction between primary care physicians and patients (pp. 115–150). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry, 18(3), 213–231.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J., & Robinson, J. D. (2006). The structure of patients’ presenting concerns: Physicians’ opening questions. Health Communication, 19(2), 89–102.Google Scholar
Heritage, J., Robinson, J. D., Elliott, M. N., Beckett, M., & Wilkes, M. (2007). Reducing patients’ unmet concerns in primary care: The difference one word can make. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22(10), 1429–1433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1972). Side sequences. In Sudnow, D. (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 294–338). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an Introduction. In Lerner, G. (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Local, J. K. (2004). Getting back to prior talk: And-uh(m) as a back-connecting device in British and American English. In Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Ford, C. E. (Eds.), Sound patterns in interaction: Crosslinguistic studies of phonetics and prosody for conversation (pp. 377–400). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kitzinger, C. (2000). Doing feminist conversation analysis. Feminism & Psychology, 10(2), 163–193.Google Scholar
Mandelbaum, J. (1991). Conversational non‐cooperation: An exploration of disattended complaints. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 25(1–4), 97–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishler, E. G. (1984). The discourse of medicine: Dialectics of medical interviews (Vol. 3). London: Greenwood Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Monzoni, C. M., Duncan, R., Grünewald, R., & Reuber, M. (2011). How do neurologists discuss functional symptoms with their patients: A conversation analytic study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 71(6), 377–383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Monzoni, C., & Reuber, M. (2015). Linguistic and interactional restrictions in an outpatient clinic: The challenge of delivering the diagnosis and explaining the aetiology of functional neurological problems. In Chevalier, F. H. G. & Moore, J. (Eds.), Producing and managing restricted activities: Avoidance and withholding in institutional interaction (pp. 239–270). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Plug, L., Sharrack, B. & Reuber, M. (2009). Seizure, fit or attack? The use of diagnostic labels by patients with epileptic or non-epileptic seizures. Applied Linguistics, 31(1), 94–114.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Reuber, M., Chappell, P., Jackson, C., & Toerien, M. (2018). Evaluating nuanced practices for initiating decision making in neurology clinics: A mixed-methods study. Health Services and Delivery Research, National Institute for Health Research Journal’s Library.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuber, M., Toerien, M., Shaw, R., & Duncan, R. (2015). Delivering patient choice in clinical practice: A conversation analytic study of communication practices used in neurology clinics to involve patients in decision-making. Health Service Delivery Research, National Institute for Health Research Journal’s Library, 3(7). Retrieved from http://nets.nihr.ac.uk/data/assets/pdf_file/0017/124901/FLS‐10‐2000‐61Google Scholar
Robinson, J. D. (2003). An interactional structure of medical activities during acute visits and its implications for patients’ participation. Health Communication, 15(1), 27–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, J. D. (2006). Soliciting patients’ presenting concerns. In Heritage, J. & Maynard, D. (Eds.), Communication in medical care: Interactions between primary care physicians and patients (pp. 22–47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Robson, C. M. & Lian, O. S. (2016). ‘Are you saying she’s mentally ill then?’ Explaining medically unexplained seizures in clinical encounters. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 17(1). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2017.1392219Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In Button, G. & Lee, J. R. E. (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 54–69). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(2), 101–114.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Goffman and the analysis of conversation. In Drew, P. & Wootton, A. (Eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order (pp. 89–135). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 104(1), 161–216.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Whose text? Whose context? Discourse & Society, 8(2), 165–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: Vol. 1: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, J. W., & Conrad, P. (1980). In the closet with illness: Epilepsy, stigma potential and information control. Social Problems, 28(1), 32–44.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. (2001). Negotiating who presents the problem: Next speaker selection in pediatric encounters. Journal of Communication, 51(2), 252–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. (2002). Presenting the problem in pediatric encounters: ‘Symptoms only’ versus ‘candidate diagnosis’ presentations. Health Communication, 14(3), 299–338Google Scholar
Stivers, T., & Heritage, J. (2001). Breaking the sequential mold: Answering ‘more than the question’ during comprehensive history taking. Text–Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 21(1–2), 151–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31.Google Scholar
- 8
- Cited by