LINGUIST List 23.4081|
Tue Oct 02 2012
Calls: Discourse Analysis, Pragmatics, Sociolinguistics/India
Editor for this issue: Alison Zaharee
From: Fleur van der Houwen <f.vander.houwenvu.nl>
Subject: Formulations & the Construction of Narratives in Institutional Settings
E-mail this message to a friend
Full Title: Formulations & the Construction of Narratives in Institutional Settings
Date: 08-Sep-2013 - 13-Sep-2013
Location: New Delhi, India
Contact Person: Fleur van der Houwen, Keun Sliedrecht
Meeting Email: < click here to access email >
Linguistic Field(s): Discourse Analysis; Pragmatics; Sociolinguistics
Call Deadline: 15-Oct-2012
For this panel we invite discussion on formulations (Heritage & Watson, 1979) and how these formulations function in the co-construction of 'institutionalized' narratives. Formulations are candidate understandings of what participants have said earlier in the conversation (Heritage & Watson, 1979) and negotiate 'what we are talking about.' Participants hence use formulations as an interactional tool to negotiate knowledge and attain mutual understanding. Formulations have been studied in various institutional settings, for example in therapy and counseling (e.g Antaki, 2008; Stommel & van der Houwen, forthcoming 2013), in news interviews (Heritage, 1985), and judicial settings (Sliedrecht & van Charldorp 2011; Van der Houwen, 2009). In these settings the participants focus on the construction of a narrative that fits the institutional goals. In therapy, the therapist elicits the client's personal narrative by asking questions in order to make a diagnosis. In a police interrogation, the police officer interrogates a suspect in order to record 'what happened'. As has been shown in several studies, formulations play a central role in the construction of (institutional) narratives. Though, findings about formulations are diffused (Antaki, 2008). This panel elaborates on previous studies and explicitly addresses the role of formulations in narratives that the participants co-construct; a focus that enables a comparative view between findings about formulations in different institutional settings (see Drew, 2003). Questions that come to mind are for example:
- How does the institution affect the form formulations take?
- How do formulations reflect understanding of earlier utterances and what does that say about shared or non-shared understanding of the institution?
- Who does the formulating and how might that be related to the respective role parties have in a specific institution (e.g. lay or professional)?
The aim is to further our understanding of both the 'use' of formulations in different settings as well as the institution in which participants draw upon this strategy (see Drew 2003). In this panel we want to bring together studies of different institutions with a focus on the role of the institutional communicative goal and how it is oriented to by respective parties.
Antaki, C. (2008). Formulations in psychotherapy. In A.Peräkylä, C. Antaki, Vehviläinen Sanna, & I. Leudar (Eds.), Conversation analysis and psychotherapy (pp. 26-42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Drew, Paul 2003. Comparative Analysis of Talk-in-Interaction in Different Institutional Settings: A Sketch. In Philip Glenn, LeBaron, Curtis D., Mandelbaum, Jenny (Ed.), Studies in Language and Social interaction in honor of Robert Hopper. Mahweh: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 293-308.
Heritage, J. & Watson, D. R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In G.Psathas (Ed.), Everyday Language (pp. 123-162). New York: Irvington Press.
Heritage, J. (1985). Analyzing news interviews: aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In T.A.v.Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis. (vol.3 ed., pp. 95-116). London: Academic Press.
Sliedrecht, K. Y. & Charldorp, van T. C. (2011). Tussen spraak en schrift: de rol van samenvattingen in het politieverhoor. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 33, 34-55.
Van der Houwen, F. (2009). Formulating disputes. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2072-2085.
Call for Papers:
We welcome contributions that address these kinds of questions from a variety of approaches including - but not limited to - conversation analysis, discursive psychology, interactional sociolinguistics, or critical discourse analysis.
Consistent with IPrA requirements, abstracts (500 words, doc format) should be sent to both panel organizers (f.vander.houwenvu.nl, k.y.sliedrechtvu.nl) by October 15, 2012, and they will let you know by October 23 if the abstract is accepted for the panel. If accepted by the conveners, they will need to be submitted online individually by November 1, 2012: 'Though it is the panel organizer(s) who take(s) active responsibility for the quality of the contributions to their panel (i.e. they decide what is accepted), abstracts should, for all panel contributions, be submitted by the individual contributors separately by the 1 November 2012 deadline that will be handled for individual submissions' (http://ipra.ua.ac.be/main.aspx?c=.CONFERENCE13&n=1443). Presenters of papers at IPrA 13 must be members of IPrA.
Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Page Updated: 02-Oct-2012
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed
on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.