Cover not available
Article published In:
Certainty and Uncertainty in Dialogue
Edited by Andrzej Zuczkowski
[Language and Dialogue 4:1] 2014
► pp. 24–41

The epistemic side of retrospective utterances

 | Freie Universität Berlin, Germany
The paper further contributes to what Schegloff (2007) terms as “retro-sequences”. Different utterance formats such as utterances expansions by a second speaker, or questions regarding prior utterances, can be termed retrospective in a communicative sense. While previous research describes both utterance formats as syntactic and communicative opposites, this paper concentrates on their common ground, e.g. their common sequence organization. The paper demonstrates how interlocutors use the different utterance formats to display a degree of understanding with varying epistemic stance, and specifies the linguistic means for it.
Keywords: retrospective utterances, questions regarding prior utterances, , epistemic stance, utterances expansions by a second speaker, understandin
Published online: 20 May 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.4.1.02pau
References (20)
Auer, Peter. 2007. “Why are Increments such Elusive Objects? An Afterthought.” Pragmatics 17 (4): 647–658. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. “On the Prosody and Syntax of Turn-continuations.” In Prosody in Conversation, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Magret Selting, 51–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conrad, Rudi. 1978. Studien zur Syntax und Semantik von Frage und Antwort. Berlin, Ost: Akad.-Verlag.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2007. “Prosodische Prospektion und Retrospektion im Gespräch.” In Gespräch als Prozess. Linguistische Aspekte der Zeitlichkeit verbaler Interaktion, ed. by Heiko Hausendorf, 69–94. Tübingen: Narr Verlag Tübingen.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono. 2007. “‘Incrementing’ in Conversation. A Comparison of Practices in English, German and Japanese.” Pragmatics 17 (4): 513–552.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof. 1997. “Questions.” In Handbook of Logic and Language, ed. by Johan van Benthem, and Alice G.B. ter Meulen, 1055–1124. Amsterdam, Lausanne, New York: Elsevier Science. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond. 2012. “Navigating Epistemic Landscapes: Acquiescence, Agency and Resistance in Responses to Polar Questions.” In Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, ed. by Jan P. de Ruiter, 179–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferrara, Kathleen. 1992. “The Interactive Achievement of a Sentence: Joint Productions in Therapeutic Discourse.” Discourse Processes 15 (2): 207–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William, and David Fanshel. 1977. Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth. 2009. “Drei Spielarten der Epistemizität, drei Spielarten der Evidentialität und drei Spielarten des Wissens.” In Modalität. Epistemik und Evidentialität bei Modalverb, Adverb, Modalpartikel und Modus, ed. by Werner Abraham, and Elisbeth Leiss, 3–24. Tübingen: Stauffenberg Verlag.Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. 2004. “Collaborative Turn Sequences.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner, 225–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, Christine. forthcoming. “Retrospective Utterances on Temporal and Loctional Information.”
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2010. “Grammar and Social Relations: Grammar as a Constitutive Feature of Conversational and Institutional Activities.” In Why Do You Ask? The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse, ed. by Alice Freed, and Susan Erlich, 87–107. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Rost-Roth, Martina. 2006. Nachfragen. Formen und Funktionen äußerungsbezogener Interrogationen. (Linguistik - Impulse & Tendenzen, 22). Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation, 2 vols1. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. “Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action.” The American Journal of Sociology 102 (1): 161–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, Margret. 1995. Prosodie im Gespräch: Aspekte einer interaktionalen Phonologie der Konversation. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Nick J. Enfield. 2010. “A Coding Scheme for Question–Response Sequences in Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 421: 2620–2626. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szczepek, Beatrice. 2000. “Functional Aspects of Collaborative Productions in English Conversation.” InLiSt - Interaction and Linguistic Structures 211: 1–36. [URL].Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Paul, Christine
2021. Chapter 7. Making the implicit explicit. In Building Categories in Interaction [Studies in Language Companion Series, 220], ► pp. 187 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.