Finnish particles mm, jaa and joo as responses to a proposal in negotiation activity

Siitonen, Pauliina; Wahlberg, Karl‐Erik

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.001

Cited by 12 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We have earlier approached the data from the CA perspective and have scrutinised the proposal sequences that did not progress along the typical course of action initiated by a proposal. More specifically, we focused on the sequences in which a proposal was responded to with a silence (Siitonen et al 2012), a stand-alone response particle (Siitonen and Wahlberg 2015b) or an evasive response (Siitonen and Wahlberg 2015a). For the purposes of this paper, we then acquainted ourselves with the CD Scale and the CD scores that the sequences had received as part of the Adoptive Family Study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conversation analytic research has shown that a proposal may be responded to with only a standalone particle (e.g. Davidson 1984;Houtkoop 1987;Sorjonen 2001;Siitonen and Wahlberg 2015b).…”

Section: A Stand-alone Particle Response To a Proposalimplicit Rejectmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even though some response particles have been identified as "weak agreement tokens" that the proposer may take as a possible pre-rejection (see Davidson 1984: 112;Houtkoop 1987: 76, 81), a stand-alone response particle is not an explicit rejection of a proposal. In terms of the acceptance of a proposal, on the other hand, a mere response particle is not sufficient on its own and the participants typically continue to collaboratively elaborate on it in order to reach acceptance of the proposal (Siitonen and Wahlberg 2015b). That is, if a particle is the only response to a proposal, the proposal is left hanging in the air, so to speak.…”

Section: A Stand-alone Particle Response To a Proposalimplicit Rejectmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As part of the previous study, which focused on schizophrenia risk factors, two psychologists used the Communication Deviance (CD) Scale to score the data for problems in family interaction. In our previous studies (Siitonen et al 2012, Siitonen and Wahlberg 2015a, 2015b, we have analysed the data through Conversation Analysis (CA) without knowledge of the original CD scoring, i.e. in order to enable unbiased comparison between the methodologies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

How is family interaction analysed as a risk factor for schizophrenia? A cross-method comparison

Siitonen

Keisanen

Wahlberg

2017

CAM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we compare two methodological approaches - Conversation Analysis (CA) and the Communication Deviance (CD) Scale - in detecting confusing family interaction, which is considered one of the risk factors for schizophrenia. CA is a method for identifying and describing actions in interaction, whereas the CD Scale presents the criteria for identifying communication defects in the field of schizophrenia research. Our aim is to determine whether the approaches resonate with and could complement each other in analysing the same interactional data - i.e., a total of 10.5 hours of audio-recorded Finnish family interaction in a psychological test in which the participants negotiate on mutual Rorschach inkblot interpretations. The data include 585 proposals by the family members. Here we focus on three types of proposal sequences (140 in all) where a proposal is not followed by an acceptance or a rejection. We have earlier shown that from the CA perspective, the family members orient to the discontinuity of these sequences by pursuing an explicit response to a proposal, but very rarely make the 'problematic' nature of the interaction visible to each other or the analyst. In the present paper, we will show that the CD Scale finds communication defects in the sequences under analysis but that the defects do not primarily involve the discontinuity of the sequence. Thus CA and the CD Scale look at interaction from different perspectives and disagree on what is considered an interactional problem.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conversation analytic research has shown that a proposal may be responded to with only a standalone particle (e.g. Davidson 1984;Houtkoop 1987;Sorjonen 2001;Siitonen and Wahlberg 2015b).…”

Section: A Stand-alone Particle Response To a Proposalimplicit Rejectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Stand-alone Particle Response To a Proposalimplicit Rejectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

How is family interaction analysed as a risk factor for schizophrenia? A cross-method comparison

Siitonen

Keisanen

Wahlberg

2017

CAM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Creating one text together requires participants to take numerous shared decisions. And although extensive research has been carried out on the content and coordination of the talk during writing together, less attention was paid to interactional practices students display as they negotiate for consensus (Siitonen & Wahlberg, 2015).…”

Section: Nature and Function Of Proposals 21 Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer talk in collaborative writing of primary school students: A conversation analytic study of student interaction in the context of inquiry learning

Herder¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study we explore how reflective practices function in the process of collaborative writing of primary school students, performing writing tasks in the context of inquiry learning. Previous research has established that reflecting on the writing process and use of metalanguage are significant for developing writing proficiency. The Conversation Analysis-informed exploration displayed different practices. First, students reflect on appropriateness, in terms of redundancy, relevance and style, when accounting for the rejection of a proposal. Second, students reflect on correctness of spelling, punctuation and grammar, which becomes observable in recruitments, instructions and corrections. The findings suggest that students share a strong orientation to certain writing norms that are merely made relevant in a responsive manner.

show abstract

Nature and function of proposals in collaborative writing of primary school students

Herder

Berenst

Glopper

et al. 2018

Linguistics and Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The nature and function of proposals in collaborative writing of primary school students was studied from a sociocultural, interactional perspective, using data from 33 writing events in the context of inquiry learning. Five main targets of proposals were identified: content, procedure, translation, text structure and layout. We demonstrate how proposals are designed in different declarative and interrogative constructions. The objective of a proposal appears to be related to both the syntactical design, and the ways in which participants respond to proposals. Proposals for content and translation generate extensive discourse, in contrast to procedural proposals. Writing down the agreed words or sentences occurs in various sequential positions and consequently performs a different function in the joint construction of text. The results enhance our understanding of how primary school students collaboratively write texts.

show abstract

Finnish particles mm, jaa and joo as responses to a proposal in negotiation activity

Cited by 12 publications

References 11 publications

How is family interaction analysed as a risk factor for schizophrenia? A cross-method comparison

How is family interaction analysed as a risk factor for schizophrenia? A cross-method comparison

Peer talk in collaborative writing of primary school students: A conversation analytic study of student interaction in the context of inquiry learning

Nature and function of proposals in collaborative writing of primary school students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About