Conversation analysis (CA) of children-adult—interaction in various contexts has become an established field of research. However,child therapyhas received limited attention in CA. In child therapy, the general psychotherapeutic practice of achieving empathy faces particular challenges. In relation to this, our contribution sets out three issues for investigation and analysis: the first one is that practices of achieving empathy must be preceded by efforts aiming to establish which kind of individualized conversation works with this child (Midgley,2006). Psychotherapy process researchers in adult (...) therapy (Stiles et al.,2015) have found that therapists “invent” a new therapy for each patient (Norcross and Wampold,2018). The second issue is that it can be difficult for adults to understand the ways in which children express their conflicts and issues. In particular, play activities in therapy, e.g., with dolls, can open up additional scenarios of interaction. The play scenario can be used to disclose unformulated problems masked in everyday and family interactions. The third issue is how to respect the child's higher degree of vulnerability, compared with adult patients. How is it communicated and dealt with in therapy? We present an interaction analysis of a single case study of the first 20 min of a child therapy session with an adopted girl aged 4 years brought to treatment because of “unexplainable rage.” The session was videotaped; parents granted permission. We analyze this session using an applied version of CA. In our analysis, we describe “doing contrariness,” as a conversational practice producing epistemic and affiliative disruptions, while “avoiding doing contrariness” and “remedying contrariness” are strategies for preserving or restoring the affiliative dimension of a relationship (in child therapy). We show how these practices operate in various modes and how they are used by both parties in our case study to variously aid and impedethe achievement of empathy and understanding. (shrink)

This study is part of a larger exploration of ‘talk and cure’ that combines the examination of talk-in-interaction, with nonverbal displays, and measurements of the client’s and therapist’s autonomic arousal during therapy sessions. A key assumption of the study is that psychotherapy entails processes of intersubjective meaning-making that occur across different modalities and take place in both verbal/explicit and nonverbal/implicit domains. A single session of a psychodynamic psychotherapy is analysed with a focus on the expression and management of affect, with (...) an aim to describe key interactive events that promote change in both semantic and procedural domains. The clinical dialogue is analysed discursively, with a focus on the conversational processes through which new meanings are jointly constructed and affective states shared; detailed attention is paid to nonverbal displays of affiliation and affect. Furthermore, we explore whether the interactional patterns implicated in joint meaning-making, as revealed by analysing the therapeutic conversation, have correlates in the autonomic arousal of the two protagonists, as reflected in their heart rates. Conversation analysis has still untapped potential to illuminate interactional patterns that underlie the practice of psychotherapy. In this exploratory study we suggest that discursive analyses of talk-in-interaction can be enriched through detailed focus on nonverbal displays as well as measures of physiological arousal. Drawing upon the analysis, we suggest that bringing the methodological strengths of language-based analysis into fertile dialogue with embodied quantitative data can help our explorations of what’s really going on in psychotherapy. (shrink)

A recurrent theme that is addressed in psychotherapies is the client’s conflicting emotions. This article discusses discursive practices of working on conflicting emotions during psychodynamic psychotherapy. We focus on a phenomenon that we refer to as a ‘delayed response’ and analyze the client’s uses of interactional means, such as a display of negative experience, to invite affiliation or empathy from the therapist. The therapist, however, does not take a turn in the first possible place after the client’s turn. Recurrently, the (...) therapist’s silence is followed by the client’s new turn that backs down from the emotional experience under discussion. After these retractions, the therapists respond with a turn that is responsive both to the retraction and to the initial display of negative experience that occurred prior to it. We argue that the timing of the therapist’s response in these sequences is in the service of psychotherapeutic work on conflicting emotions. (shrink)