A Systematic Review of Second-Person Knowledge Acquisition in First-Encounter Interactions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1311.27Keywords:
second-person knowledge, first encounter interactions, conversation analysis, systematic review, epistemicsAbstract
The acquisition of second-person knowledge in first encounters is a relatively unexplored area of investigation. In this study, we aim to shed light on this topic by systematically reviewing published research articles that describe the strategies and patterns observed when people seek to gain knowledge about one another in first encounters. Drawing on the framework of second-person knowledge and epistemics in conversation, we extracted relevant findings from the selected studies and explained the patterns of interactions in different interactional settings. Our findings showed that there are differences in the way second-person knowledge is acquired in both institutional and mundane settings. In institutional settings, the process is often asymmetrical and initiated by the party with institutional power to achieve institutional goals. Participants’ professional roles and expertise are emphasized through the display of their epistemic stance and status. Although the party with a lower authority position mostly provides information within their personal experience domain, there are attempts to gain knowledge about their conversational partner using certain conversational strategies. Whereas in mundane settings, second-person knowledge exchange is reciprocal between conversational partners, and this knowledge serves as both a topic and a facilitator for the continuation of conversations. Sometimes, speakers trespass on their partners’ epistemic territories to show an inclination toward creating a common ground. The findings of this review provide a better understanding of how people gain, disclose, withhold, and display knowledge about one another during the first encounter, which is an important communication event in everyday interaction.
References
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships. (January 2013), 37–41.
Bangerter, A. (2000). Self-representation: Conversational implementation of self-presentational goals in research interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19(4), 436-462.
Benton, M. A. (2017). Epistemology personalized. Philosophical Quarterly, 67(269), 813–834. https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqx020
Bergamin, J. (2017). “To Know and To Be: Second-Person Knowledge and the Intersubjective Self, A Reply to Talbert.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 6, no. 10, 43-47.
Berger, C. R. (1986). Uncertain Outcome Values in Predicted Relationships Uncertainty Reduction Theory Then and Now. Human Communication Research, 13(1), 34–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1986.tb00093.x
Bolinger. D. (1957). Interrogative Structures of American English. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Butler, A., Hall, H., & Copnell, B. (2016). A Guide to Writing a Qualitative Systematic Review Protocol to Enhance Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing and Health Care. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 13(3), 241–249. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12134
Drew, P. (2018). Epistemics in social interaction. Discourse Studies, 20(1), 163–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617734347
Flint, N., Haugh, M., & Merrison, A. J. (2019). Modulating troubles affiliating in initial interactions the role of remedial accounts. Pragmatics, 29(3), 384–409. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17010.fli
Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization. Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Haugh, M., & Carbaugh, D. (2015). Self-disclosure in initial interactions amongst speakers of American and Australian English. Multilingua, 34(4), 461–493. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2014-0104
Heath, C. (1992). The delivery and reception of diagnosis in the general practice consultations, in: P. Drew& J. Heritage (Eds) Talk at Work, pp. 235–67. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
Heritage, J. (2012b). The Epistemic Engine: Sequence Organization and Territories of Knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
Heritage, J. (2012c). Beyond and behind the words: Some reactions to my commentators. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 76–81.
Heritage, J. (2013a). Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies, 15(5), 551–578.
Heritage, J. (2013b). Epistemics in conversation. In: Sidnell J and Stivers T (eds) Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 370–394.
Heritage, J. & Sefi, S. (1992). Dilemmas of advice: aspects of the delivery and reception of advice in inter- action between Health Visitors and first-time mothers, in: P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds) Talk at Work, pp. 359–417. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hudak, P. L., Gill, V. T., Aguinaldo, J. P., Clark, S., & Frankel, R. (2010). “I’ve heard wonderful things about you”: How patients compliment surgeons. Sociology of Health and Illness, 32(5), 777–797. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2010.01248.x
Kaski, T., Niemi, J., & Pullins, E. (2018). Rapport building in authentic B2B sales interaction. Industrial Marketing Management, 69(August), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.08.019
Kamio, A. (1997). Territory of Information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kecskes, I. (2019). The interplay of prior experience and actual situational context in intercultural first encounters. Pragmatics & Cognition, 26(1), 112–134. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.19008.kec
Kozin, A. V. (2007). Standing for the client: On the interactional becoming of the criminal defence attorney1. International Journal of the Legal Profession, 14(2), 173–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695950701616523
Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.
Llewellyn, N., & Spence, L. (2009). Practice as a members’ phenomenon. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1419–1439. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609349877
Maharani, A., & Suratno, A. (2019). Analysis of conversational organization in Indonesian doctor–patient diagnostic talks. Asian Englishes, 21(1), 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2018.1447307
Maynard, D. W., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1984). Topical Talk, Ritual and the Social Organization of Relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47(4), 301. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033633
Maynard, D. (1992). On clinicians’ co-implicating recipients’ perspective in delivery of diagnostic news, in: P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds). Talk at Work, pp. 331–58. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Mondada, L. (2018). Greetings as a device to find out and establish the language of service encounters in multilingual settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 126, 10–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.09.003
Mortensen, K., & Hazel, S. (2014). Moving into interaction-Social practices for initiating encounters at a help desk. Journal of Pragmatics, 62(July 2011), 46–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.009
Nao, M. (2013). “So you are from England”: Categorization and cultural reduction in first-time conversation lounge encounters between foreign teachers and Japanese students of EFL. Applied Linguistics, 36(2), 194–214. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amt041
Opsommer, E., & Schoeb, V. (2014). “Tell Me About Your Troubles”: Description of Patient-Physiotherapist Interaction During Initial Encounters. Physiotherapy Research International, 19(4), 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1002/pri.1585
Park, S. H. (2021). The dentist’s first turn-at-talk in Korean dental visits. Journal of Pragmatics, 185, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.08.011
Park, Y. (2017). A closing-implicative practice in Korean primary medical care openings. Journal of Pragmatics, 108, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.10.004
Pomerantz, A.M. (1980). Telling my side: ‘Limited access’ as a ‘fishing’ device. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 186–198.
Raymond, G., & Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35(5), 677–705. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060325
Robinson, J. D. (1998). Getting down to business: Talk, gaze, and body orientation during openings of doctor-patient consultations. Human communication research, 25(1), 97-123.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation, vol. 1 & 2. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Scarvaglieri, C. (2020). First Encounters in Psychotherapy: Relationship-Building and the Pursuit of Institutional Goals. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(December), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.585038
Shaw, S. E., Seuren, L. M., Wherton, J., Cameron, D., A’Court, C., Vijayaraghavan, S., … Greenhalgh, T. (2020). Video consultations between patients and clinicians in diabetes, cancer, and heart failure services: Linguistic ethnographic study of video-mediated interaction. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(5), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.2196/18378
Svennevig, J. (2014). Direct and Indirect Self-Presentation in First Conversations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(3), 302–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X13512307
Talbert, B. M. (2014). Knowing other people: A second-person framework. Ratio, 28(2), 190–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/rati.12059
Talbert, B. (2017). Overthinking and Other Minds: The Analysis Paralysis. Social Epistemology, 31(6), 545–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2017.1346933
Turowetz, J., & Hollander, M. M. (2012). Assessing the experience of speed dating. Discourse Studies, 14(5), 635–658. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612454083
Van Dijk, T. A. (2014). Discourse and Knowledge: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
White, S. J., Stubbe, M. H., Macdonald, L. M., Dowell, A. C., Dew, K. P., & Gardner, R. (2014). Framing the Consultation: The Role of the Referral in Surgeon-Patient Consultations. Health Communication, 29(1), 74–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2012.718252
