Chapter 15
How to move on after silences
Addressing thought processes to restart conversation
Florian Dreyer and Michael M. Franzen1
Introduction2
A major aim of psychotherapy is to jointly find the right words for the patient’s problems. Such a concept of therapy-as-communication has been formulated as “talking cure” (Freud & Breuer, 1895d). High levels of attentiveness to what has been said is one of the foundations of therapeutic interaction and “Conversation Analysis, as the study of talk-in-interaction, should therefore have much to say about psychotherapy” (Peräkylä, 2013, p. 551). CA findings can easily be implemented in clinical practice (Peräkylä, 2008). CA also directs the focus on material-bound analysis (Buchholz & Kächele, 2013) of what really happens in the consulting room.
The process of finding the right words in social interaction can be observed in speech (Brouwer, 2003; Oelschlaeger, 1999; Oelschlaeger & Damico, 2000; Rae, 2008) as well as bodily activities (Beattie & Coughlan, 1999; Hauser, 2014; Hayashi, 2003; Radford, 2009, 2010). Additionally, interlocutors need silences in conversation to process the co-constructed meaning of what has been said and to plan what they are saying next (Bögels, Magyari, & Levinson, 2015; Levinson & Torreira, 2015). CA points out different functions of silence in talk-in-interaction and draws a distinction between pauses, gaps and lapses on the basis of their position in turn taking (Hoey, 2015, 2017, 2018; Jefferson, 1988; Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974). Pauses occur before a turn is completed, gaps are described as silences at a transition-relevance place (TRP), the moment when the right to speak can be handed over. Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson also point to lapses as a third function of silence in interaction: “Discontinuities occur when, at some transition-relevance place, a current speaker has stopped, no speaker starts (or continues), and the ensuing space of non-talk constitutes itself as more than a gap – not a gap, but a lapse” (Sacks et al., 1974, p. 714).
Since our data only consists of transcribed audio recordings, we are unable to refer to multimodal displays of understanding of the participants (mutual gaze, gestures and movement or posture (Bowleg, Valera, Teti, & Tschann, 2010; Goodwin, 1980; Mondada, 2011, 2014; Müller, 2019; Rossano, 2013)). Nevertheless, we will show how interlocutors address aspects of lapses in following utterances. Following Acheson’s proposal, we decided to treat lapses as conversational turns:
(Acheson, 2008, p. 551)
In psychotherapy lapses occur quite regularly and are not only treated as events but are part of clinical theory itself (Buchholz, 2016b, 2018; Hill et al., 2018; Levitt, 2001b; Levitt, 2001a; Sharpley, Munro, & Elly, 2005). In our chapter we will apply the aforementioned material-bound analysis to lapses that occur after a patient reports a personal problem.
Data
The transcripts of therapeutic interactions are part of the CEMPP project (Conversation Analysis of Empathy in Psychotherapy Process Research) which is conducted at the International Psychoanalytic University (IPU) in Berlin. All 45 sessions stem from the Munich psychotherapy study (Huber & Klug, 2016), were transcribed in GAT 2 (Selting et al., 2009, 2011) and subsequently analyzed using Atlas.ti (ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH, 2017).
We employed a GREP search (Global search for a Regular Expression and Print out matched lines) in Atlas.ti to search our data corpus for adequate silences and subsequently rechecked whether the transcribed silence is indeed found in the original audio file of the session. Our search was limited to silences longer than 30 seconds. Afterwards we checked in the transcripts whether the silence was indeed a lapse. This left us with 53 lapses longer than 30 seconds, out of which we chose 5 examples to illustrate our RLRI model.
All examples were translated and simplified.3 In the appendix we provide a fine-grained German transcript adhering to the aforementioned GAT 2-conventions. We hope this helps readers to better understand our analysis.
Method
In one of his first “Lectures on conversation” (fall 1964) Harvey Sacks introduces the notion of “rules of conversational sequence” (Sacks, 1995, p. 4) which govern the succession of different turns in talk. Using transcripts he starts to make “objects that get used to make up ranges of activities” (Sacks, 1995, p. 11) visible. This idea, heavily inspired by the ethnomethodology of Harold Garfinkel (Bergmann, 1981; Garfinkel, 1967), was the foundation of CA. Conversation analysts first try to describe a “distinctive bit of behavior in social interaction” (Sidnell, 2013, p. 78) in its conversational context. While searching for similar instances of such bits of interaction the researcher starts to form a system, suitable to explain the sequences of talk. A detailed description of single examples is combined with an analysis of the reoccurring patterns. The analysis of the conversation thereby follows what Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson describe as the “central methodological resource” (Sacks et al., 1974, p. 728) of CA, namely that a speaker not only reacts to a prior utterance, but simultaneously displays his or her understanding of this prior utterance. These mutual displays of understanding form the basis for further analysis. CA therefore turns to what has been said after an utterance, in order to understand the utterance in its sequential context.
Analysis
Even though we developed our model in the process of analyzing the ensuing examples, here we will briefly describe it in advance. This enables our readers to conduct the material-bound analysis for themselves while following our line of thoughts.
Our excerpts start with a problem report by the patients containing communicative cues for uncertainty like small pauses, self-interruptions, hesitation markers or word searches. Following this report and potential primary interjections (Norrick, 2009) a lapse in conversation occurs. After the lapse the patients refer to thought processes during the lapse to restart the conversation. Conversational cues would be: “I wonder”, “I just think about”, “I ponder on”, etc. The last step in our model involves the joint expansion of the thought processes that have been made accountable for the therapist. Both patient and therapist jointly evaluate the consequences of the thought processes and construct a shared image (see Figure 15.1).
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/01de5/01de5c3796c8c2c230cccee0d83b64c8928a4f42" alt=""
Results
Excerpt 14
Our first example is taken from a forty-ninth psychoanalytic session with a male therapist and a female patient. The patient speaks about her current problems, being in a long-distance relationship and simultaneously having a demanding job, therefore not being able to have a conversation about her relationship with her partner. The therapist takes up this tension and shifts it toward the notion of different parties pulling and dragging the patient in different directions. Additionally he brings in the patient’s parents, who supposedly weren’t able to have such conversations.
01 P: Well it surely isn't enough,
02 T: Mhmh
03 P: to conduct such a conversation as we
04 did yesterday during the car journey, or so.
05 T: Mhmh, aha
06 P: Well that, that doesn't work. There are, well I
07 realize it for myself, I (--) try to make an effort but I
08 do not manage to do it. (--) Well I (1 .0) I somehow
09 appease it, (-) because the topic on the phone,
10 T: Aha(--)
11 P: Mm! (9.5) so this contact with him per se (.)
12 well that, that (.) I would need that (--).
13 T: Mhmh
14 (17.4)
15 P: Yes, the danger, you are absolutely right about
16 that. It really was back then like that here now
17 again. (1.0) Everybody again (.) dives into his/her
18 own life and that this emotional and what has (--)
19 been there (---) is again being pushed away for
20 now.
21 T: Mhmh
22 (96.5)
The patient starts with a clear statement (l. 01–04) about a current style of conversation with her partner while evaluating it negatively (Günthner, 2002). She thereby projects a difficulty which is elaborated further in lines 06–09. The therapist utters continuers which can be understood as “actions displaying [the] recipient’s understanding that an extended turn at talk is in progress but not yet complete” (Goodwin, 1986, p. 207). He appears to expect the formerly mentioned explanation of the difficulty. The patient tries to restart her utterance several times, which can either be due to internal difficulties of the speaker, or, as Goodwin hypothesized, can also function interactively and demonstrate the competence of the speaker to construct sentences that are oriented to appropriately by a recipient” (Goodwin, 1980, p. 294). Since the patient speaks about her efforts to start a conversation, her struggling to pursue her own line of talk, the stumbling form of what has been said, mirrors its content. After a pause of 17.4 seconds the patient starts to shift between tenses. She mentions a danger (l. 15), links it to a former utterance of the therapist, and continues with a short insertion in past tense (was, l. 16) combined with back then, only to abruptly shift back into present tense with here now again (l. 16–17). She concludes her sentence by telling that two things are being pushed away, something emotional and something else that has been there (l. 18–19), which is not elaborated any further and a long lapse of 96.5 seconds occurs. Uncertainty is being displayed through:
- turn restarts and stumbling (l. 06–09)
- ellipsis (l. 08)
- tense shifting (l. 15–20)
After the lapse the conversation proceeds as follows:
-> 23 P: Strangely I have to think about it again right
24 now, because you just brought up my parents,
25 when we children had to gather together when
26 (1.7) they first (.) disclosed that (1.2) well they
27 somehow would have separated bedrooms right
28 now.
29 T: Mhmh
30 (1.3)
31 P: And ehm (2.1) that this year we would simply
32 go on vacation separately.
33 T: Mhmh (3.2) is this picture for you (-)
34 P: Yes, it it it just now came somehow, the
35 whole time in fact.
36 T: Yes, ah yes
In her first utterance after the long lapse the patient starts to speak about her thoughts, thereby converting her mental processes to a “conversational object” (Buchholz, 2016a, p. 135), thus making it observable. The evaluative Strangely (l. 23) and the reference to the recency (right now, l. 23–24) of the following utterance qualifies the reuptake of the conversation as a pre-announcement projecting the patient’s understanding of what will be said next. In addition to this well-known projective feature of pre-announcements, we want to propose that both the evaluative and the temporal components obtain additional characteristics, when occurring after long lapses. They act as pivotal elements in the talk, being on the one hand clearly connected to and shaping what follows next. On the other hand they retrospectively attribute meaning to the lapse. Attributing meaning to the lapse is done in a second way – by punctuation (Bateson & Jackson, 1964). The patient addresses the therapist as cause of her thoughts and therefore as cause of a segment that starts way before the lapse (I have to think about (l. 23) and because you just brought up l. 24).
Since the evaluative Strangely (l. 23) not only acts as an indicator for a following announcement, but also displays the patient’s understanding of the lapse as anomalous and potentially problematic, her following narration also opens up a space for a possible repair of the lapse. The therapist continues with an elliptical is this picture for you (l. 33), to which the patient responds with the utterance: yes, it it it just now came somehow, the whole time in fact (l. 34–35). She agrees to the notion picture. The subsequent self-correction (Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks, 1977) specifies what the patient means by now (l. 24), namely the whole time (l. 35).
Keeping RLRI in mind, we first find the report of a personal problem with uncertainty markers before a long lapse occurs. The lapse is subsequently resolved by the transformation of the thought process into a conversational object and the belated expansion of this thought process over the whole lapse. From here on they jointly explore the image brought up after the long lapse.
Excerpt 25
The second example is taken from the one-hundred-and-fifty-sixth session of a psychoanalytic psychotherapy with a male therapist and a female patient. The patient has her first session after two weeks of holidays and is late. She starts to speak about her fear of being dismissed by the therapist after she “left him alone” for two weeks and how she is afraid to take something for herself (e.g. two weeks off). She subsequently connects this anxiety to her difficulties with “reconnecting” to people (therapist, boyfriend) after not having seen them for a while and to her own feelings and fears of being abandoned. The following sequence then takes place:
01 P: In situations in which I felt pushed away or
02 abandoned, it was rather that I somehow
03 so, not always have said that I'm simply
04 estranged so. Somehow so you've left me
05 alone, now you have to regain my favor
06 first, so to say.
07 T: Mhmh
08 (21.4)
09 P: Hm
10 (33.4)
-> 11 I'm wondering right now why, whatever
12 situation, why this reconnection is always
13 that hard for me. But I assume that (1.2)
14 uhm (2.0) simply has to do with me. Uhm
15 (6.6) well that there is a feeling of (1.0)
16 woundedness presumably. So (---) where I
17 (-) somehow this (.) where I somehow
18 retreat (1.2) and simply (---) like from a,
19 well (1.1) peeking out of a snail shell and say,
20 well now I have to check the situation first.
21 (1.8)
The patient starts her turn with the description of past situations (l. 01). She isn’t pointing to one or more single events but rather generalizing over different instances. While describing her handling of such situations she addresses an unnamed other, who is to blame for leaving her alone. The first part of the segment is full of elements which downgrade the relevance of what just has been said (somehow (l. 02 and l. 04), simply (l. 03), so to say (l. 06)), leaving the impression that something difficult has just been projected. As in our first example, uncertainty is displayed. The therapist utters a continuer (l. 07) after which a first lapse of 21.4 seconds occurs. At this point the second example differs from the first. Even though we have a first lapse, the patient isn’t taking up the next turn. Instead she utters a single hm (l. 09) after which another lapse of 33.4 seconds takes place. Norrick states that interjections, such as hm, “can stand alone as complete utterances, generally meant to index an internal state of the speaker” (Norrick, 2009, p. 876). In our excerpt the hm seems rather to index thought processes happening during the lapse. This is supported by the patient’s reuptake with the words I’m wondering right now (l. 11). Again there is a pivotal pre-announcement, which is on the one hand linked to the lapse and on the other hand projecting an explanation of what the patient is wondering about.
She continues to refer to her difficulties in reconnecting, which she already mentioned in the beginning of the session. Whereas she earlier spoke about reconnecting to different people, in this segment the notion of reconnection (l. 12) isn’t tied to a person anymore. This utterance may be heard as a comment on what is going on in the therapy right now, a lapse after which one has to “reconnect” to the conversation. Following this line of thought, the patient is wondering why it is so hard to reconnect to what has been said before. Alder (2016) describes this mixture of conversational and narrative level as allusive talk. The patient further elaborates this difficulty and her reactions to it, finally arriving at the image of “peeking out of a snail shell” (l. 19) which is shared by the therapist:
22 T: So, in case you've been abandoned?
23 P: Yes
24 T: Mhmh
25 (3.4)
26 And maybe you also think (1.1) that the other
27 one, in this case me, might feel the same.
28 P: Yes, mhmh.
29 (1.7)
30 T: That I, so to speak, am sitting injured in the
31 snail shell and
32 P: Mhmh
33 (3.3)
34 T: Maybe I‘m thinking, now you have to really
35 make an effort.
He reassures himself as to whether he understood the patient correctly (l. 22), to which she agrees (l. 23). After a pause (l. 25), he starts to add another understanding to the patient’s former elaborations. He not only widens the scope of possible interpretations, but also adds another train of thought to what might have happened during the lapse. Thus, patient and therapist are retroactively co-constructing the thought processes during the lapse. Starting from line 26 the therapist starts to take over the patient’s picture of peeking out of a snail shell (l. 19) and transforms it to sitting injured in the snail shell (l. 30–31), thereby bringing the patient’s problems outside the therapy into the consulting room.
Excerpt 36
After analyzing the first two excerpts quite extensively we briefly want two introduce a third transcript, to demonstrate another occurrence of RLRI. The example is taken from the one-hundred-and-fiftieth session of a psychoanalytic psychotherapy with a female therapist and a male patient. The patient explains how he had an encounter with his ex-girlfriend (Klara) some days before the session, during which she told him of her new love affair. In addition his application for a geriatric nurse training program was rejected.
01 P: I also think that the (-) so (2.1) it somehow
02 already was clear to me, but not so (--) so err
03 (-)so fast, that that that that I had this (1.1)
04 erm (-) this idea that I could start this
05 training. (1.0) I had high hopes that haven’t
06 had anything to do with this training, (.)
07 so(-) so with this.
08 T: Hm
09 P: So, (-) of course these hopes had somehow a
10 connection to Klara.
11 T: Mhmh, yes
12 P: And (.) I think that this, (.) well now it‘s just
13 so (-) err (-) much clearer that, (-) heh (1.1)
14 that this was tied together.
15 (1.0)
16 T:Yes
17 (106.6)
-> 18P:In the moment I just ponder,
19T:Mh
20(1.6)
21 P: What I told you in the beginning of the session,
22 (1.6)
23 with (---) my fear that I once more really get
24 on your nerves.
25 T:Mhmh
26 (1.1)
27 P:And (--) I just think about whether I, (-) or (-)
28 in this case I would just bring it up again. (.)
29 Whether I should have left it with that, so not
30 to mention it again.
(12 lines omitted)
43 T:Yes, that's all right.
44 P:Good!
45 (1.7)
46T:Hehe what is the problem,
47 (3.4)
48 T: for you?
49 P: Hm
50 (3.9)
51 T: That was, that is in fact our task here.
52 That your fears or imaginations (1.0)
53 can be brought up together.
The patient starts by telling about two seemingly independent problems – the rejection by Klara and the rejection of his application, which are subsequently linked. Once more we find displays of uncertainty in his narration, namely turn restarts (l. 01 and l. 12), hesitation markers (l. 02 and l. 13), speech pauses or self-interruptions (l. 01–07, l. 12–14), word repetitions or stammering (l. 02, l.0 3, l. 07, l. 13–14), downgrading in relevance (l. 01) and tense shifting (l. 01-07, l. 12–14). He tells a problematic story with a clear display of uncertainty to which the therapist responds with a simple yes (l. 16) before the long lapse occurs. In this example we find a lapse of nearly two minutes before the patient restarts the conversation with the described transformation of his thought processes to a conversational object. The point of reference, as in Excerpt 1, is an utterance made before the pause, this time by the patient himself. Toward the end of this example the therapist starts to explore the patient’s fear (l. 23) and reassures the patient by re-evoking the image of jointly bringing up his fears or imaginations (l. 52).
Contrast 1 – lapse without preceding markers of uncertainty7
This excerpt is taken from the sixty-fifth session of a psychodynamic psychotherapy with a male therapist and a female patient. The patient talks about memories of her mother sharing potentially delicate information they had exchanged, with others. The patient links these aversive experiences, to past behavior where she kept experiences to herself or carefully examined others, before becoming talkative. Based on this experience, it was harmful to the patient when a friend, Sarah, behaved similarly (to the patient’s mother), and told Carola (another friend) something the patient did not want Carola to know. This led the patient to doubt her friendship with the Sarah and made her an “alone fighter”.
01P:And for that reason, I assume that this just
02well, (1.1) this betrayal was,
03T:Yes
04P:Hurt me immensely.
05T:Yes
06P:Because I (2.1) didnt really expect it from sarah.
07T:Yes Mhmh.
08P:Because everyone else, doesn’t matter
09who they are, but not from Sarah.
10T:Yes
11P:Mhmh (1.9) mm yes
12(74.3)
The patient formulates the problem (hurt me immensely, l. 05), this time without displaying uncertainty, as seen in Excerpts 1, 2 and 3. Instead the problem is presented with a judgmental evaluation of the other’s action (didnt really expect it from sarah, l. 06). In terms of RLRI, we find one presupposition met (problem report), but not the other (uncertainty). The topic is mutually closed (T: yes – P: mhmh (1.9) mm yes, l. 10–11), as described in the minimal scheme of closings (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973), before the long lapse (l. 12) occurs.
13P:(clears her throat)
14(8.1)
-> 15Mm yes apart from that nothing else comes
16to my mind.
17(clears her throat)
18Hm
In lines 15–16 the patient actively rejects the continuation strategy proposed by RLRI. For her, there are no thought processes ready to be transformed into conversational objects (apart from that nothing else comes to my mind). She hands the task to restart the conversation over to the therapist. He accepts it and continues as such:
19T:Yes (---) I just had to [think] about if you say,
20P:[mhmh ]
21(1.6)
22T:Betrayal, mistrust,
23P:Mhmh,
24T:Towards everyone, not towards Sarah, (1.7) how
25you actually feel about me. (2.6) I should be
26included in ‚everyone‘ 1.4)
After the patient’s rejection of providing a transformed thought process, the therapist himself refers to a thought process (I just had to think about, l. 19). Additionally, his punctuation strategy links this lapse with an earlier utterance by the patient (if you say (1.6) Betrayal, mistrust, l. 19 and l. 22). He demonstrates potential consequences of the patient’s utterance (I should be included in ‚everyone‘, l. 25–26), which transforms a personal problem into an interactional problem. At this moment RLRI starts anew, with the patient producing an utterance filled with uncertainty markers.
27P:Naw, (2.0) you are the third group. You are
28standing on your own. No, (2.8) no I can
29can‘t say it that way.
30T:Yes
31(1.0)
32P:Naw, (1.2) mm.
33T:Mhmh
34(5.6)
-> 35P:No, even here I think, m- as it was in the
36beginning, when when I said somehow, (1.3) hm
37I have difficulties talking.
38T:Yes
As RLRI assumes, the patient produces uncertainty by placing pauses-in-speech (l. 27–28) and stammering (no I can can’t say, l. 28–29). After closing the topic mutually (l. 32–33), a lapse of 5.6 seconds follows (l. 34). Once more the patient refers to thought processes (I think, l. 35) but arrives at a punctuation (in the beginning, l. 35–36) instead of a shared image.
Contrast 2 – Transforming bodily sensations to conversational objects8
The first four examples demonstrate only one of the resources used by interactants in psychotherapy to restart their conversation. Another possible solution to do so, namely introducing bodily sensations, is presented in the following example. It is taken from a seventeenth session of a psychodynamic therapy with a male therapist and a male patient.
01P:Then the question how, (.) how could, (.) how
02did it (--) end up like this? How (--) can a
03life, (3.0) that started out so wonderful, how
04can a life end like this somehow or continue
05or go on. I consciously do not say end because,
06T:Mhmh
07P:Because I do not want that.
08T:Mhmh
09P:But (2.3) how did it end up like this? (3.6)
10And I try to extract everything from our long
11talks. (1.6) And and and (1.3) somehow I think
12you9 should somehow figure it out why, (1.4)
13why. (4.6) Nothing, no cases in the family
14no (--) situations to deduce from. (1.2) That
15there were severe depressions, which somehow
16were hereditary or so
17T:Mhmh, mhmh, no [explanations.]
18P: [Nothing, ] no explanations
19T:No explanations (-) yes. Mhmh
20(91.4)
-> 21P:Everything in me trembles
22T:Mhmh
23(29.6)
24P:And nevertheless, the ride the ride to you
25today, (2.3) somehow the whole day. (1.0) Counted
26the hours till it was three o'clock, till I
27could start driving and [°hh ] could drive to you.
28T: [Mhmh]
29(12.1)
30P:Somehow in the (--) hope of driving to the doctor
31who, [who ] heals the wound.
32T: [Mhmh]
33(1.0)
34T:Who has thread and needle (1.6) and who can
35close the wound. (1.6) Mhmh, such a picture I can
36understand, I think.
After the long lapse (91.4 seconds) in line 20, the patient refers to a current, bodily sensation as a means to restart the talk, Everything in me trembles (l. 21). The therapist utters a minimal response (Mhmh, l. 22) and another lapse of 29.6 (l. 23) seconds occurs.
Semantically, this utterance is radically different from our previous examples where thought processes were mentioned. However, taking into consideration the notion: “The mind is inherently embodied” (Lakoff & Johnson, 1999, p. 3), using the body as a reference shows similarities to referring to thought processes. As the patient utters Everything in me trembles, she transforms an inner sensation to a conversational object, just as the patients in our first three examples did. Please note that we once more find speech pauses and self-interruptions (l. 01–05 and 09–16), word repetitions and stammering (l. 01–03, l. 11), downgrading in relevance (l. 04, l. 12, l. 15) before the lapse as well as the joint production of an image afterwards (the image of a doctor who, [who ] heals the wound. (l. 30–31) and Who has thread and needle (l. 34)). Including embodied processes as potential point of reference enables the RLRI to function as a broader description of the processes around lapses. Due to limitations in chapter length we can only show one of these embodied examples. For our discussion we put “embodied” in brackets, to include the hypothesis that referring to bodily sensations might function on the same level as referring to thought processes, since it is ultimately a communicative display of externalization.
Discussion
In our chapter we have demonstrated a prototypical sequence in psychotherapeutic interaction in which lapses may be found. After (1) the patient reports a problem, (2) a lapse occurs. The patient (3) subsequently refers to (embodied) thought processes to restart the conversation. Eventually, (4) the participants jointly elaborate on these verbalized thought processes and construct a shared image.
Referring to these (embodied) thought processes to reestablish talk-in-interaction might function on two different levels. Buchholz (2016a) describes how mutually perceived objects around interlocutors find their way into the conversation while directing the joint attention (Scaife & Bruner, 1975; Tomasello & Todd, 1983) of both participants. This leads to the building of a common ground (Stalnaker, 2002) from which further conversation can be started. In contrast to this observation the patients in our examples do something else after the long lapses. They direct the joint attention to an entity only perceivable by themselves, their inner processes (thoughts or bodily sensations). This “epistemic imbalance” (Heritage, 2012, p. 32) leads to a further elaboration of a topic or a sequence. Or, as Heritage puts it, it “is sufficient to motivate and warrant a sequence of interaction that will be closed when the imbalance is acknowledged as equalized for all practical purposes” (Heritage, 2012, p. 32); the joint construction of an image aids in the compensation of this imbalance. We further propose that lapses can contribute to this imbalance, especially considering a classical psychoanalytic setting (patient lying on the couch, therapist sitting behind him) where the acquisition of mutual gaze is heavily impaired. Tomasello and Carpenter link gaze-following and joint attention to the concept of “shared intentionality”. They propose that one of the reasons for its development is “for sharing psychological states with others, which seems to be present in nascent form from very early in human ontogeny as infants share emotional states with others in turn-taking sequences” (Tomasello & Carpenter, 2007, p. 124).
Speaking about one’s (embodied) thought processes not only resolves the lapse but furthermore displays that the speaker was still involved in the therapeutic process, even though he or she didn’t communicate it directly. As a consequence, addressing (embodied) thought processes after lapses is a means to retrospectively ensure shared intentionality.
Appendix
Transcript 1 – Excerpt 1
01P:also es REICHT `auf jeden fall nicht-
02T:<<pp>hm_hm,>=
03P:=so_n geSPRÄCH zu ´führen wie wir_s gestern auf der <<p>Autofahrt
getan haben <<creaky>[oder so-]>>
04T: [hm_hm, ] a_ha,
06(---)
07P:<<p><<all>also> KLAPPT nicht;> (--)
08dass iʔ also Ich merk des auch bei MI:R,
09ich °hh versUch mir ganz <<creaky>doll ´MÜhe zu geben;> (--)
10aber es geLINGT mir dann auch nie; (--)
11also <<creaky>ICH:->
12(1.2)
13ich WIEgel_s dann <<creaky>ab Irgendwie->
14weil die theMA:tik am tEle[fon,]
15T: [hm; ]
16P:<<p>ʔhmʔhm;>
17(9.5)
18so diese beGEGnung an sIch mit I:hm;
19<<p>also dass_dass->(.) das BRÄUCHT ich schOn;
20T:a_ha,
21(17.4)
22P:ja die geFAHR dass;
23da ham sie komPLETT recht-
24<<creaky>des WAR auch wirklich damals so dass da nich jeder;>
(1.0)
25<<f>wIeder jEder in sein LEben> eintaucht;
26un_dass dieses emotioNA:le-
27das was (--) DA: war- (---)
28ERSTmal `wieder (---) wEggeschoben wird.
29T:hm_hm,
30(96.5)
31P:<<all>ich muss jetzt kOmischerweise die gAnze zeit dran DENken;>
32weil sie jetzt grAde meine ELtern angesprochen haben-
33wo: (---) ↑wir kInder uns damals da verSAMmeln mussten als;
34(1.7)
35sie uns Erst <<creaky>offenBART haben dass->
36(1.2)
37dass sie jetz <<all>irgendwie getrennte> SCHLAFzimmer haʔ hÄtten,
38T:hm_hm,
39(1.3)
40P:UN:D_ähm;
41(2.1)
42<<p>dass wir dieses jahr auch einfach mal geTRENNT in urlaub
fahren->
43T:hm_hm,
44(3.2)
45is `ihnen s_BILD,
46P:ja s_s_es KAM jetz grad.
47<<all>bei mir die gAnze zeit EIgentlich schon,>=
48T:=ja:, (-) ah_ja;
Transcript 2 – Excerpt 2
01P:<<creaky>äh i_i> in sItuationen wo ICH-
02mir `ABgeschoben oder;
03verlAssen: `VORgekommen bin-
04°h dA: war des schon Eher so dass ich: irgendwie so:-
05wie ich immer gesagt hab FREMD `bin <<creaky>einfach->
06also IRgendwie so:-
07jetzt hast mich alLEIN gelassen,=
08=jetzt musst du dir <<len>meine GUNST erst amal wieder (---)
09äh:: (--) `erARbeiten <<creaky>sozusAgen->
10T:hm_hm,
11(21.4)
12P:hm;
13(33.4)
14ich überlEge gerade waRUM,
15in welcher situatIon auch IMmer,=
16=mir dieses ANknüpfen immer wieder so schwEr fällt;
17aber ich nehm AN des,
18(1.2)
19P:äh::m-
20(2.0)
21hat EINfach, (---)
22was (.) DAmit zu tun dass ich, (---)
23äh:::-
24(6.6)
25´ja: dass dann ein geFÜHL von:-
26(1.0)
27verLETZTheit (.) wohl dA is: <<p>also->(---)
28WO ich (.) In:s; (-)
29<<all>wo ich mich irgendwie> zuRÜCKzieh;
30(1.2)
31und EINfach::, (--)
32WIE so aus so_m:;
33(1.1)
34so_m ´schnEckenhaus erstmal RAUSkucke;=
35=und sag äh <<all>jetzt muss ich erstmal sehn wie hier so die>
LAge ist;
36(1.8)
37T:also für den ´fAll dass SIE verlassen worden sind.
38P:ja:,
39T:<<p>hm_hm,>
40(3.4)
41und vielleicht DENken sie ja auch,
42(1.1)
43dass es dem ANderen,=
44=in dE:m fall MI:R, (-)
45AUCH so ge[hen könnte.]
46P: [´ja: ] (--) hm_hm,
47(1.7)
48T:dass ich AUCH sozusagen; (-)
49verLETZT im schnEckenhaus ´sit[ze und-]
50P: [hm_hm, ]
51(3.3)
52T:<<p>jetz: vielleicht erstmal DENke->=
53=<<pp>jetzt müssen sie Erstmal sich zIemlich ANstrengen.>
54P:hm_hm,
Transcript 3 – Excerpt 3
01P:ich: DENK_auch dass ich dIe: (--) also;
02(2.1)
03es war mir schOn n ↑BISschen ↓klar-=
04=<<all>aber nich SO:,> (---)
05<<creaky>so:> (--) so SCHNELL,
06<<p><<all>dass dass dass> dass ich DIEse:-
07(1.1)
08hm- (--) vOrstellung <<stimmlos> dass ich diese> Ausbildung
ANfangen könnte;
09(1.0)
10des hab ich mit_n mit_n (--) <<f>mit hOffnung beSETZT,>=
11=die mit dieser AUSbildung gar nichts zu tUn haben; (---)
12<<p>also (.) also mit diese:r->
13T:hm;
14P:also: (.) natÜrlich hOffnung die: in irgend nem zusammenhang noch
mit der KLAra [standen;]
15T: [hm_hm, ]
16P:[un:d] ich GLAUB dass des:- (-)
17T:[ja:;]
18P:also JETZT bin ich mir <<all>nur so;> (--)
19ähm (--) viel Eher klar darüber dass:-
20(1.0)
21((lacht kurz auf))
22dass das damit zuSAMmenhängt;
23(1.0)
24T:ja-
25(115.7)
26P:ich überLEG jetzt grA:d-
27(2.8)
28das was ich Ihnen am (.) ANfang der stunde erzählt hAbe-
29(1.7)
30<<p>mit> (---) meiner befÜrCHtung dass ich Ihnen dann mal wieder
doch sehr auf die NER[ven ge]hen könnte,
31T: [ˇhm ]
32(1.1)
33P:un::d (1.1) ich: (.) DENK jetzt grad drüber nach ob ich-
34oder (-) in DEM fall,
35<<p>würd ichs jetzt einfach An:sprechen nochmAl,> °hhh
36ob ich's hätte lieber dabei <<f>beLASsen sollen;>
37<<p>also nich nochmal des erWÄHnen;
(12 lines ommited)
50T:<<f>`JA> <<p>des is schon in Ordnung;>
51P:<<p>gut>
52(1.1)
53T:<<:-)>ha> °h was is da des `proBLEM dabei,
54(3.4)
55<<p>FÜR sie;>
56(1.1)
57<<p>hm;>
58(4.1)
59<<p>des war des is doch unsere> AUFgabe hier;
60<<pp>dass wir> (---) ÄNGSte oder vOrstellungen von Ihnen,
61(1.0)
62äh: (-) zur SPRAche bringen;
Transcript 4 – Contrast 1
01P:<<p>°h und aus DIEsem grund nehm ich an,=
02dass mich DES jetzt eben so->
03(1.1)
04dieser <<lachend>verRat->
05T:<<f>ja->
06P:mich ´so: massIv geTROFfen [hat;=]
07T: [ja:, ]
08P:=weil (-) ich den auch (2.1) eigentlich von sArah NICHT erwartet
hät[te. ]
09T: [ja:-] (-) [hm_hm,]
10P: [in ] in meinem ´gAnzen Umfeld von JEdem Andern.
11egal wie sie `hEißen von jedem;
12aber NICHT von sArah.
13T:ja:;
14P:<<p>hm_hm,>
15(1.9)
16<<p>mja:,>
17(74.3)
18((räuspert sich))
19(8.1)
20`mja: sonst fällt mir zu dem thema NIX mehr ein-
21((räuspert sich))
22<<lachend>hm->
23T:ja- (---)
24ich MUSste `grade drüber nAchden[ken ] wenn sie sagen-
25P:[<<p>hm_hm,>]
26(1.6)
27T:verRAT,
28MISStrauen-
29P:hm_hm,=
30T:=gegenüber JEdem.
31<<p>SArah gegenüber,> (--)
32NICHT.
33(1.7)
34wIe: (--) sIe das eigentlich MIR gegenüber empfInden.
35(2.6)
36ich müsste ja zu dem JEden-
37AUCH dazugehÖren.
38(1.4)
39P:ne:,
40(2.0)
41sie sind die DRITte gruppe;
42sie <<lachend>STEHN für sich> allEine.
43NEI:N,
44(2.8)
45NEI:N kann ´ich kann ich so nich sAgen;
46T:ja:?
47(1.0)
48P:ne:,
49(1.2)
50ʔhmʔhm
51T:hm_hm,
52(5.6)
53P:nEin ich glaube auch DA:,
54so: so wie's auch am ANfang war-
55woʔ wo ich auch gesagt hab IRgendwie-
56(1.3)
57hm- h°
58fällts mir auch SCHWE:R,
59das REden;
60T:JA.
Transcript 5 – Contrast 2
01P:dann die frAge WIE,
02wIe konnte` (.) wIe konnte es so (--) KOMmen;
03wIe (--) wie kann ein LEben,
04(3.0)
05des: (.) sO ´TOLL (---) begOnnen hat-=
06=wie kann ein leben <<creaky>so: (.) so:> (.) ENden irgendwo,=
07=<<creaky>oder so WEIterlaufen oder->°h
08daHINlaufen- °hh
09ich sag jetzt beWUSST nicht Enden;
10[weil] des WILL ich <<stimmlos>auch nicht>
11T:[hm:,]
12hm;
13P:Aber,
14(2.3)
15wie konnte es <<creaky>SO> kOmmen;
16(3.6)
17und aus unseren GANzen lAngen gesprÄchen-
18(1.6)
19versUch ich Alles RAUSzuziehen und_und und;
20(1.3)
21denk mir IrgendwO mÜsstest du doch <<creaky>da mal DRAUFkommen;>=
22=waRUM-
23(1.4)
24wesHALB;
25(4.6)
26<<p>NICHTS>
27keine FÄLle in der famIlie;
28keine °hh (--) situaTIOnen die rÜckschließen könnten;
29(1.2)
30<<t>da GAB es stArke depressIonen;=
31=und des: hat sich <<creaky>irgendwo verERBT oder so->
32T:´hm_hm hm_hm,
33keine erKLÄ[rungen,]
34P: [NICHTS ] <<creaky>keine erklÄrung->=
35T:=keine erKLÄrung.
36<<stimmlos>ja> hm_hm,
37(91.4)
38 P:°hh <<p>alles in mir BE:BT->
39 T:hm_hm-
40(29.6)
41P:°hh und trOtzdem die FAHRT,
42die ´FAHRT hEute zu Ihnen hIer-
43(2.3)
44P:hhh° irgendwO: den gAnzen TA:G,
45(1.0)
46die stUnden gezÄhlt bis es: DREI Uhr war-
47bis ich von zuhAuse LOSfahren konte,=
48=und [°hh ] (--) und zu IHnen fahren konnte,
49T: [hm_hm,]
50(12.1)
51P:irgendwO in der (1.1) in der HOFFnung,
52zum ARZT zu fAhren de:r-
53[der ] die WUNde heilt;
54T:[hm_hm,]
55(1.0)
56der NAdel und fAden hat,
57(1.6)
58<<p><<all>und der die ´wUnde wieder ZUmachen kann;>>
59(1.6)
60hm_hm,
61so_n bIld_des °hh ich gut verSTEhen <<dim>kann dEnk ich.>
Notes
References
- Acheson, K. (2008). Silence as Gesture: Rethinking the Nature of Communicative Silences. Communication Theory, 18(4), 535–555. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00333.x.
- Alder, M.-L. (2016). Dream-Telling Differences in Psychotherapy: The Dream as an Allusion. Language and Psychoanalysis, 5(2), 19–26. doi:10.7565/landp.v5i2.1558.
- ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH. (2017). Atlas.Ti.
- Bateson, G., & Jackson, D. (1964). Social Factors and Disorders of Communication. Some Varieties of Pathogenic Organization. Research Publications - Association for Research in Nervous and Mental Disease, 42, 270–290.
- Beattie, G., & Coughlan, J. (1999). An Experimental Investigation of the Role of Iconic Gestures in Lexical Access Using the Tip-of-the-Tongue Phenomenon. British Journal of Psychology (London, England: 1953), 90(Pt 1), 35–56. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712699161251.
- Bergmann, J. (1981). Ethnomethodologische Konversationsanalyse. In: P. Schröder & H. Steger (Eds.), Jahrbuch des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache: Vol. 1980. Dialogforschung (1st ed., pp. 9–52). Düsseldorf: Schwann.
- Bogels, S., Magyari, L., & Levinson, S. C. (2015). Neural Signatures of Response Planning Occur Midway through an Incoming Question in Conversation. Scientific Reports, 5, 1–11. doi:10.1038/srep12881.
- Bowleg, L., Valera, P., Teti, M., & Tschann, J. M. (2010). Silences, Gestures, and Words: Nonverbal and Verbal Communication about HIV/AIDS and Condom Use in Black Heterosexual Relationships. Health Communication, 25(1), 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230903474019.
- Brouwer, C. E. (2003). Word Searches in NNS-NS Interaction: Opportunities for Language Learning? The Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 534–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00206.
- Buchholz, M. B., & Kächele, H. (2013). Conversation Analysis: A Powerful Tool for Psychoanalytic Practice and Psychotherapy Research. Language and Psychoanalysis, 2(2), 4–30.
- Buchholz, M. B. (2016a). Psychotherapy – Analyzing Conversation of Typical Problematic Situations (TPS). Language and Psychoanalysis, 5(2), 11–18. doi:10.7565/landp.v5i2.1557.
- Buchholz, M. B. (2016b). Conversational Errors and Common Ground Activities in Psychotherapy: Insights from Conversation Analysis. International Journal of Psychological Studies, 8(3), 134–153. doi:10.5539/ijps.v8n3p134.
- Buchholz, M. B. (2018). Kleine Theorie der Pause. PSYCHE, 72(02), 91–121. https://doi.org/10.21706/ps-72-2-91
- Freud, S., & Breuer, J. (Eds.) (1895d). Studien über Hysterie. GW I.
- Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
- Goodwin, C. (1980). Restarts, Pauses, and the Achievement of a State of Mutual Gaze at Turn-Beginning. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3–4), 272–302. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00023.x.
- Goodwin, C. (1986). Between and within: Alternative Sequential Treatments of Continuers and Assessments. Human Studies, 9(2–3), 205–217. doi:10.1007/BF00148127.
- Günthner, S. (2002). Perspectivity in Reported Dialogues: The Contextualization of Evaluative Stances in Reconstructing Speech. In: C. F. Graumann (Ed.), Human Cognitive Processing: Vol. 9. Perspective and Perspectivation in Discourse (pp. 347–374). Amsterdamm, NY: Benjamins.
- Hauser, E. (2014). Solution Strokes. Gesture, 14(3), 297–319.
- Hayashi, M. (2003). Language and the Body as Resources for Collaborative Action: A Study of Word Searches in Japanese Conversation. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 36(2), 109–141. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3602_2.
- Heritage, J. (2012). The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30–52. doi:10.1080/08351813.2012.646685.
- Hill, C. E., Kline, K. V., O'Connor, S., Morales, K., Li, X., Kivlighan, D. M., & Hillman, J. (2018). Silence is Golden: A Mixed Methods Investigation of Silence in One Case of Psychodynamic Psychotherapy. Psychotherapy (Chicago, IL). Advance online publication; https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000196.
- Hoey, E. M. (2015). Lapses: How People Arrive at, and Deal With, Discontinuities in Talk. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 48(4), 430–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.1090116.
- Hoey, E. M. (2017). Lapse organization in interaction (Dissertation). Radboud University, Nijmegen.
- Hoey, E. M. (2018). How Speakers Continue with Talk After a Lapse in Conversation. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 51(3), 329–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1485234.
- Huber, D., & Klug, G. (2016). Münchner Psychotherapiestudie. Psychotherapeut, 61(6), 462–467. doi:10.1007/s00278-016-0139-7.
- Jefferson, G. (1988). Preliminary Notes on a Possible Metric Which Provides for a 'Standard Maximum' Silence of Approximately One Second in Conversation. In: D. Roger & P. Bull (Eds.), Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp. 166–196). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
- Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York, NY: Basic Books.
- Levinson, S. C., & Torreira, F. (2015). Timing in Turn-Taking and Its Implications for Processing Models of Language. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00731.
- Levitt, H. M. (2001a). Sounds of Silence in Psychotherapy: The Categorization of Clients' Pauses. Psychotherapy Research : Journal of the Society for Psychotherapy Research, 11(3), 295–309. doi:10.1080/713663985.
- Levitt, H. M. (2001b). Clients’ Experiences of Obstructive Silence: Integrating Conscious Reports and Analytic Theories. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 31(4), 221–244.
- Mondada, L. (2011). Understanding as an Embodied, Situated and Sequential Achievement in Interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 542–552.
- Mondada, L. (2014). Pointing, Talk, and the Bodies: Reference and Joint Attention as Embodied Interactional Achievements. In M. Seyfeddinipur & M. Gullberg (Eds.), From Gesture in Conversation to Visible Action as Utterance: Essays in honor of Adam Kendon (pp. 95–124). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
- Müller, C. (2019). Metaphorizing as Embodied Interactivity: What Gesturing and Film Viewing Can Tell Us About an Ecological View on Metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 34(1), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2019.1591723.
- Norrick, N. R. (2009). Interjections as Pragmatic Markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 866–891. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.005.
- Oelschlaeger, M. L. (1999). Participation of a Conversation Partner in the Word Searches of a Person with Aphasia. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 8(1), 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360.0801.62.
- Oelschlaeger, M. L., & Damico, J. S. (2000). Partnership in Conversation. Journal of Communication Disorders, 33(3), 205–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9924(00)00019-8.
- Peräkylä, A. (Ed.) (2008). Conversation Analysis and Psychotherapy. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Peräkylä, A. (2013). Conversation Analysis in Psychotherapy. In: J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (1st ed., pp. 551–574). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
- Radford, J. (2009). Word Searches: On the Use of Verbal and Non-Verbal Resources during Classroom Talk. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 23(8), 598–610. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699200902997491.
- Radford, J. (2010). Adult Participation in Children's Word Searches: On the Use of Prompting, Hinting, and Supplying a Model. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 24(2), 83–100. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699200903407149.
- Rae, J. (2008). Lexical Substitution as a Therapeutic Resource. In: A. Peräkylä, C. Antaki, S. Vehviläinen, & I. Leudar (Eds.), Conversation Analysis and Psychotherapy (1st ed., pp. 62–79). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Rossano, F. (2013). Gaze in Conversation. In: J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (1st ed., pp. 308–329). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
- Sacks, H., & Jefferson, G. (Eds.). (1995). Lectures on Conversation: Volume I (1. published in one paperback vol). Oxford: Blackwell.
- Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. doi:10.2307/412243.
- Scaife, M., & Bruner, J. S. (1975). The Capacity for Joint Visual Attention in the Infant. Nature, 253(5489), 265–266.
- Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–382. doi:10.2307/413107.
- Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up Closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327.
- Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K., . . . Uhmann, S. (2009). Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung : Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 10(2009), 353–402.
- Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J., Bergmann, P., & Birkner, K., Uhmann, S. (2011). A System for Transcribing Talk-In-Interaction: GAT 2 Translated and Adapted for English by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten. Gesprächsforschung - Online-Zeitschrift zur Verbalen Interaktion, 12, 1–51.
- Sharpley, C. F., Munro, D. M., & Elly, M. J. (2005). Silence and Rapport during Initial Interviews. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 18(2), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070500142189
- Sidnell, J. (2013). Basic Conversation Analytic Methods. In: J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (1st ed., pp. 77–98). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
- Stalnaker, R. (2002). Common Ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25(5/6), 701–721. doi:10.1023/A:1020867916902.
- Tomasello, M., & Carpenter, M. (2007). Shared Intentionality. Developmental Science, 10(1), 121–125. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00573.x.
- Tomasello, M., & Todd, J. (1983). Joint Attention and Lexical Acquisition Style. First Language, 4(12), 197–212. doi:10.1177/014272378300401202.