Affiliative and disaffiliative uses of you say x questions

Abstract

This article explores a question format consisting of `you say' plus a version of what the co-participant has said, which is used to ask for confirmation of something said in an earlier sequence. Questions using this you say x format often request not only confirmation but also accounts and can, on occasions, be taken as challenging the interactional balance, that is, be treated as disaffiliative. The article investigates the sequential, prosodic and grammatical conditions for affiliative and disaffiliative uses of you say x questions and discusses the potential institution specificity of the phenomenon. It is found that the clearly disaffiliative you say x questions are parts of dispreferred and disaligning moves, that they have `marked' prosody, that they raise problems, and that they are most often prefaced by `objecting' particles. Affiliative you say x questions are aligning next sequences in environments where the focus is on information delivery. They have `unmarked' prosody and they contribute to getting information on record. You say x questions which call for accounts without being clearly disaffiliative, are also examined. Even though they often raise problematic issues, they are not sequentially disaligning and have less `marked' prosody than the disaffiliative cases.

Challenges of Interviewers' Institutional Positionings: Taking Account of Interview Content and the Interaction

“…The question formulation in lines 142-144 makes multiple attempts not to pressure the interviewee into feeling as though he had to provide technical information about how medication affects his neuropathy; however, the assertion in line 147 reorients the exchange to that more technical perspective. Line 147, "that it's about the nerve endings," is a question that is phrased as an assertion-thus, rather than seeking a straight answer, it is structured to prefer agreement and expects an elaboration (Steensig & Larsen, 2008). According to Houtkoop-Steenstra (2000), interviewers often ask leading questions in a similar manner to this while attempting to build rapport with the interviewee.…”

Doing disaffiliation with now-prefaced utterances

“…Still others have focused on how various linguistic or discursive practices are deployed to do disaffiliation in a variety of contexts (e.g., Egbert and Vöge, 2008;Emmertsen and Heinemann, 2010;Halonen and Sojonen, 2008;Heinemann, 2008;Heritage, 2002;Mozoni, 2008;Robinson and Bolden, 2010;Steensig and Larsen, 2008;Stokoe and Edwards, 2008;Waring, 2005). Heinemann (2008) describes a catch-22 yes/no question in Danish where the question is designed to get a confirming answer but cannot be answered confirmatively without displaying disagreement with the questioner.…”

Mentaliseringsteori og interaktionsanalyse. Integration af sprog og psykologi

“…Hvorfor undersøger jeg ikke bare affilierende adfaerd? Der findes i litteraturen ikke entydige definitioner af affilierende adfaerd (fx Steensig & Larsen 2008;Stivers 2008;Conroy 1999;Stivers et al 2011), men hos Stivers et al (2011: 20) be-skrives affiliering som det handlingsniveau hvor samtalende er affektivt samarbejdende. Hermed kan der umiddelbart forekomme at vaere paralleller til mentaliseringsadfaerd.…”