Inferential Practices in Social Interaction: A Conversation-Analytic Account

Abstract

This paper argues that conversation analysis has largely neglected the fact that meaning in interaction relies on inferences to a high degree. Participants treat each other as cognitive agents, who imply and infer meanings, which are often consequential for interactional progression. Based on the study of audio-and video-recordings from German talk-in-interaction, the paper argues that inferences matter to social interaction in at least three ways. They can be explicitly formulated; they can be (conventionally) indexed, but not formulated; or they may be neither indexed nor formulated yet would be needed for the correct understanding of a turn. The last variety of inferences usually remain tacit, but are needed for smooth interactional progression. Inferences in this case become an observable discursive phenomenon if misunderstandings are treated by the explication of correct (accepted) and wrong (unaccepted) inferences. The understanding of referential terms, analepsis, and ellipsis regularly rely on inferences. Formulations, third-position repairs, and fourth-position explications of erroneous inferences are practices of explicating inferences. There are conventional linguistic means like discourse markers, connectives, and response particles that index specific kinds of inferences. These practices belong to a larger class of inferential practices, which play an important role for indexing and accomplishing intersubjectivity in talk in interaction.

Improvement Of The Conceptual Apparatus Of Science And Culture Risk Management

“…It assumed that the specialists involved are well aware of the main aspects related to the causes of risks. They form an expert group that interaction relies on inferences to a high degree (Deppermann, 2018). The basis of the experts ' work will be information that has both qualitative and quantitative characteristics.…”

Bodies to suit the music : Depictions in opera rehearsals

“…Further, depictions are often vague and ambiguous in comparison with descriptions Reber, 2012;Stevanovic & Frick 2014). The correct interpretation of depictions may depend on the ability to draw inferences (see Deppermann, 2018b). In the face of possible challenge, the depictor may reject responsibility for an inference that another person has drawn, and thereby avoid taking responsibility for it.…”

Consignes en scène

“…La direction d'acteur vise à ce que les comédiens soient particulièrement attentifs à l'image qu'ils construisent lorsqu'ils sont sur scène, et c'est pourquoi les discours métapragmatiques commentant le jeu de l'acteur sur scène implique l'explicitation des inférences particulières qui émergent des actions afin de corriger de possibles interprétations erronées ou indésirables de la part du public. C'est le cas lorsque, comme dans cet extrait, le metteur en scène signale une intention non-ajustée à l'action qui semble émerger d'une proposition de jeu de l'acteur : les actions du comédien sont alors évaluées en termes de « correct (accepted) and wrong (unaccepted) inferences » (Depperman, 2018b). Le metteur en scène distingue nettement entre les intentions du comédien et les intentions attribuées par le public (Dynel, 2016) en soulignant que les actions que le comédien a l'intention d'impliquer ne coïncident pas forcément avec celles que le public saisit effectivement.…”