Abstract
This paper focuses on the stancetaking formats used to express personal thoughts, namely Finnish mä aattelen/aattelin ‘I think/thought’, mä mietin ‘I think/wonder’, and mun mielestä/musta ‘I think/in my opinion’. We study how these first-person formats are used in mental health rehabilitation group meetings, which aim to promote joint decision-making. In particular, we analyze whether the institutional asymmetry between support workers and clients is reflected in the use of these thought expressions. Our data comprise 23 video-recorded rehabilitation meetings, and the adopted methods are conversation analysis and interactional linguistics.Most of the stancetaking formats in our data are produced by support workers (106/129). The results of a sequential analysis conducted in this study demonstrate that support workers' thought expressions are embedded in their institutional actions, which are beyond the clients' authority. Moreover, our data suggest that support workers' and rehabilitants' thought expressions generate different participation dynamics. Although previous research has considered I think-formats typically as calls for other views, in institutional settings such as ours, these formats can also be interpreted as highlighting an institutional agent's controlling position. Acknowledging the existence of such differences in stancetaking practices can advance the design of new protocols to facilitate client participation.
Highlights
When making plans and decisions, we routinely share and explain our views and opinions to display our involvement in the process and have an effect on the outcome
This paper aims to investigate the relation between thought expression and institutional interaction further
In what follows, we illustrate the uses of I think-formats with the aim of showing that support workers produce these formats frequently because they are embedded in certain institutional tasks, such as coordinating the conversation and maintaining the meeting agenda, and because similar use of I think-formats is beyond the clients' authority
Summary
When making plans and decisions, we routinely share and explain our views and opinions to display our involvement in the process and have an effect on the outcome In interaction studies, this activity is often referred to as evaluation, assessment, or stancetaking. The interpersonal nature of stancetaking is indicated in the way stance expressions are designed and responded to; there is an underlying expectation of solidarity to which the speaker and recipient orient. In this respect, stancetaking in an interaction is everyday rhetoric: the speaker seeks mutual understanding with the recipient, and the recipient displays their understanding of this effort by responding in one way or another.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
