Affiliation, topicality, and Asperger's

Abstract

Objective: In storytelling environments, recipients’ questions have mainly been described as non-affiliative. This article examines how the topicality of story-responsive questions relates to the recipients’ displays of affiliation. Furthermore, we investigate whether there are differences between the practices of neurotypical participants (NT) and participants diagnosed with Asperger syndrome (AS) in this regard. While aiming to uncover the practices of story-responsive questions in general, we also seek to shed light on the specific interactional features associated with AS. Method: Our method is qualitative conversation analysis. Drawing on a dataset of Finnish quasi-natural conversations, we compare the interactional consequences of story-responsive questions asked by NT- and AS-participants. Results: We show how the NT-participants in our data use a specific set of practices to manage the topical relevance of their questions, while the AS-participants’ production of otherwise very similar questions differs precisely with reference to these practices. Discussion: We argue that the different ways in which the NT- and AS-participants treat the topicality of their questions influence the relative affiliative import of the questions in subtle, but yet significant ways. Conclusions: The affiliative import of story-responsive questions can only really be seen in retrospect, since, in their subsequent turns, the questioner can cast their action as having prepared the ground for affiliation.

Telling a supervisor about experiences of gendered dismissal: Problems of documentation, tellability, and failed authority

“…Responding to a telling by asking a question is an inherently ambiguous action (Koskinen et al., 2021). A question involves a display of interest, which allows the teller to elaborate, but it may also allow the recipient to redirect the focus away from the complaint (Heritage, 2011: 164–168).…”

What affects you? A conversation analysis of exploring emotions during reflection sessions in Dutch general practitioner training

“…In a sense, our 'what affects you?' examples illustrate what Koskinen et al (2021) call "inherent ambiguity as to the topicality of story-responsive questions" (p. 54). Generally, we know that questions are often used to refocus the topic of ongoing talk (Maynard, 1980;Koskinen et al, 2021).…”

“…examples illustrate what Koskinen et al (2021) call "inherent ambiguity as to the topicality of story-responsive questions" (p. 54). Generally, we know that questions are often used to refocus the topic of ongoing talk (Maynard, 1980;Koskinen et al, 2021). Questions that address an ancillary issue (Jefferson, 1984), may in hindsight introduce a step-wise topic shift, but only if it is picked up and evolved as such in the next turns.…”

Shame in social interaction: Descriptions of experiences of shame by participants with high or low levels of narcissistic traits

“…In the first phase, the participants were asked to talk freely for 5 min without any topical prompts. The second phase followed the paradigm of our previous studies (e.g., Koskinen et al, 2021aKoskinen et al, , 2021bPeräkylä et al, 2015;Voutilainen et al, 2014) where the participants were asked to talk about happy events and losses in their lives. In the third phase, the participants were instructed to tell five individual stories each, one topic at a time: (1) their journey from their home to the laboratory that day, (2) an event where they felt admired, (3) an event where they felt ashamed, (4) the nicest nature location they had been to, and (5) the worst movie they had seen.…”

“…In conversation analysis (CA), stories have been referred to as “big packages” of talk: segments of interaction the organization of which extends beyond single adjacent turns (Couper‐Kuhlen & Selting, 2018; Jefferson, 1988; Sacks, 1992). An important angle into CA analysis of storytelling has concerned the stories' affective meaning: storytellings usually convey an affective stance towards what is being told and they make relevant a complementary stance from the story‐recipient (Heritage, 2011; Koskinen et al., 2021a; Peräkylä & Ruusuvuori, 2012; Stivers, 2008). CA, along with interactional linguistics, has also been used to demonstrate how choices of referential expression in reflection sequences enable participants to describe experiences from varied vantage points and, consequently, see themselves from different perspectives (Suomalainen et al., 2023).…”