Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T21:07:25.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Compliments and accounts: Positive evaluation of reported behavior in psychotherapy for adolescents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2015

Margot Jager ,
Andrea F. De Winter ,
Janneke Metselaar ,
Erik J. Knorth ,
Sijmen A. Reijneveld  and
Mike Huiskes
Margot Jager
Affiliation:
Department of Health Sciences, University Medical Center Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1/FA10, 9713 AV Groningen, The [email protected]
Andrea F. De Winter
Affiliation:
Department of Health Sciences, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Janneke Metselaar
Affiliation:
Department of Special Needs Education and Youth Care, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Erik J. Knorth
Affiliation:
Department of Special Needs Education and Youth Care, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Sijmen A. Reijneveld
Affiliation:
Department of Health Sciences, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Mike Huiskes
Affiliation:
Center for Language and Cognition Groningen (CLCG), University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Based on conversation analysis (CA) of video-recorded therapy sessions, the article explicates a particular interactional project of positively evaluating client-reported behavior in psychotherapy. The analysis focuses on the therapist's actions that convey a positive evaluation of client-reported behavior that represents therapeutic progress. First, the data analysis revealed three components that constitute the evaluation project: discourse marker, compliment, and account. Second, the article shows that participants orient towards the observed evaluation project, both as a unified whole and as a combination of discrete and separate interactional turns. The article suggests that this evaluation project functions as a tool for achieving the institutional goal of reinforcing therapeutically desired behaviors. The empirical findings are discussed in relation to the Stocks of Interactional Knowledge, described in handbooks on dialectical behavior therapy (the specific setting in which the data were collected). (Professional-client interaction, adolescent, psychotherapy, evaluation, complimenting, conversation analysis)*

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 44 , Issue 5 , November 2015 , pp. 653 - 677
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Antaki, Charles (2008). Formulations in psychotherapy. In Peräkylä, Anssi, Antaki, Charles, Vehviläinen, Sanna, & Leudar, Ivan (eds.), Conversation analysis and psychotherapy, 26–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beach, Wayne A. (1993). Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics 19:325–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bercelli, Fabrizio; Rossano, Federico; & Viaro, Maurizio (2008). Clients’ responses to therapists’ reinterpretations. In Peräkylä, Anssi, Antaki, Charles, Vehviläinen, Sanna, & Leudar, Ivan (eds.), Conversation analysis and psychotherapy, 43–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condon, Sherri L. (1986). The discourse functions of OK. Semiotica 60:73–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Bruin, Rosanne; Koudstaal, Agaath; & Muller, Nicole (2013). Dialectische gedragtherapie voor jongeren met een borderlinestoornis: Surfen op emoties [Dialectical behavior therapy for young people with a borderline disorder: Surfing on emotions]. Houten: Springer.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul (1981). Adults’ corrections of children's mistakes: A response to Wells and Montgomery. In French, Peter & Maclure, Margaret (eds.), Adult-child conversations: Studies in structure and process, 244–67. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Gathman, E. Cabell Hankinson; Maynard;, Douglas W. & Schaeffer, Nora Cate (2008). The respondents are all above average: Compliment sequences in a survey interview. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41:271–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golato, Andrea (2002). German compliment responses. Journal of Pragmatics 34:547–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golato, Andrea (2005). Compliments and compliment responses: Grammatical structure and sequential organization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellermann, John (2003). The interactive work of prosody in the IRF exchange: Teacher repetition in feedback moves. Language in Society 32:79–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John C., & Watson, D. Rod (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In Psathas, George (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, 123–62. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet (1988). Paying compliments: A sex-preferential politeness strategy. Journal of Pragmatics 12:445–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houtkoop, Hanneke, & Mazeland, Harrie, (1985). Turns and discourse units in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 9:595–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner, Gene (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 13–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koole, Tom (2012). Teacher evaluations: Assessing ‘knowing’, ‘understanding’ and ‘doing‘. In Rasmussen, Gitte, Brouwer, Catherine E., & Day, Dennis (eds.), Evaluating cognitive competences in interaction, 43–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koole, Tom (2013). Conversation analysis and education. In Chapelle, Carol A., The encyclopedia of applied linguistics, 977–82. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William, & Fanshel, David (1977). Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell, Jack & Stivers, Tanya (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 103–30. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Linehan, Marsha M. (2003). Dialectische gedragstherapie bij borderline persoonlijkheidsstoornis: Theorie en behandeling. Amsterdam: Pearson. [Translation of Cognitive-behavioral treatment for borderline personality disorder. New York: Guilford Press, 1993.]Google Scholar
Mazeland, Harrie (1986). Repair-organisatie in onderwijsinteracties [Repair organization in educational interactions]. In Scholtens, Anneke & Springorum, Dick (eds.), Gespreksanalyse: Uitgangspunten in gespreksonderzoek. [Conversation analyses: Assumptions on conversational research], 233–46. Nijmegen: KUN.Google Scholar
Mazeland, Harrie, & Huiskes, Mike (2001). Dutch ‘but’ as a sequential conjunction. Studies in Interactional Linguistics 10:141–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Alec L.; Rathus;, Jill H. & Linehan, Marsha M. (2006). Dialectical behavior therapy with suicidal adolescents. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Peräkylä, Anssi, & Vehviläinen, Sanna (2003). Conversation analysis and the professional stocks of interactional knowledge. Discourse & Society 14:727–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In Schenkein, Jim (ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction, 79–112. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita (1984a). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell & Heritage, John (eds.), Structures of social action, 225–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita (1984b). Pursuing a response. In Atkinson, J. Maxwell & Heritage, John (eds.), Structures of social action, 152–64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Runia, Liz (1994). ‘Je ziet er goed uit!’ – ‘O ja?’: Een onderzoek naar complimenten en compliment-responsen [‘You are looking good!’ – ‘Yes?’: An investigation of compliments and compliment responses]. In Maes, Alfons, van Hauwermeiren, Peter, & van Waes, Luuk (eds.), Perspectieven op taalbeheersingsonderzoek, 316–27. Dordrecht: ICG Publications.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey (1992). Lectures on conversation, vols. 1 & 2. Ed. by Jefferson, Gail, with an introduction by Schegloff, Emanuel A.. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: vol. 1: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah (2001). Discourse markers: Language, meaning, and context. In Schiffrin, Deborah, Tannen, Deborah. & Hamilton, Heidi E. (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, 54–75. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Shaw, Rebecca, & Kitzinger, Celia (2012). Compliments on a home birth helpline. Research on Language & Social Interaction 45:213–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall, Mark D.; Amendt, John H.; Kleckner, Trudy; & Bryant, R. Duree (1989). Therapeutic compliments: Setting the stage for successful therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 15:159–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weeks, Peter (1996). A rehearsal of a Beethoven passage: An analysis of correction talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction 29:247–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiste, Elina, & Peräkylä, Anssi (2013). A comparative conversation analytic study of formulations in psychoanalysis and cognitive psychotherapy. Research on Language and Social Interaction 46:299–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfson, Nessa, & Manes, Joan (1980). The compliment as a social strategy. Research on Language & Social Interaction 13:391–410.Google Scholar