This paper has described three uses of Extreme Case formulationsto assert the strongest case in anticipation of non-sympathetic hearingsto propose the cause of a phenomenonto speak for the rightness (wrongness) of a practice.The interactants in the illustrations were engaged in several types of activities, among which were complaining, accusing, justifying, and defending. As concluding remarks, a few comments will be made about why participants use Extreme Case formulations in these activities.Part of the business of complaining involves portraying a situation as (...) a legitimate complainable. This may take the form of protraying the offense committed and/or the suffering endured in a way such that it would not be dismissed as minor. So as to legitimize a complaint and portray the complainable situation as worthy of the complaint, a speaker may portray the offense and/or the suffering with Extreme Case formulations. In both accusing and defending, participants ofyen present their strongest cases, including specifying Extreme Cases of their claims.Part of justifying a course of actions may involve portraying the precipitating circumstance as necessitating the action. The precipitating circumstance may be a problem circumstance which is portrayed as unfair, immoral, embarrassing, uncomfortable, or in some other way undesirable and/or intolerable. There is a shared assumption that the worse the problem, the more necessary it is to do something about it. In justifying, speakers use Extreme Case formulations to portray the circumstances that precipitated their actions as demanding their actions.A problem that participants have when engaged in, or reflecting on, conflicts, complaints, criticism, compliments, praise, etc. is to attribute the cause of the phenomenon. Who or what is responsible for the conflictual, complainable, praise-worthy state of affairs? One method that is used to determine what or who is responsible, i.e. to make an attribution, involves comparing the case in question to other similar cases. Through this procedure, persons determine that they are (are not) responsible for the state of affairsin questions. Extreme Case proportional formulations (‘everyone,’ ‘all,’ ‘every time’) are used to indicate that any individual member of that category is not responsible for the state of affairs; that responsibility is to be attributed elsewhere.The social order essentially is a moral order (Garfinkel, 1967). One of the ways of knowing what is acceptable and right is by finding out how people behave. There often is a shared assumption operating (one that is called into question on occasion): how people behave tells us what is the right way to behave. Proportional measures reporting the frequency or prevalence of practices are used to propose and substantiate the rightness and wrongness of those practices. Extreme Case formulations (‘all the time,’ ‘everybody,’ ‘no one’) propose behaviors are acceptable and right or unacceptable and wrong. (shrink)

We examine how displays of not remembering are used as an interactional resource in couples therapy. Our study contributes to the understanding of the social epistemology of memory; that is, how displays of not remembering relate to issues of knowledge and how they are assessed and understood with respect to the local interactional projects made relevant in therapy. From our analysis of transcribed audio- and video-taped couples therapy sessions, we found that clients’ displays of not remembering opened up a range (...) of practical epistemic and rhetorical issues: 1) it enabled the creation of new ‘participation frameworks’ in which the client’s spouse could display first-hand knowledge; 2) it made relevant issues of accountability and blame for not having remembered important relationship events; 3) it indexed an avoidance or resistance of conforming to the therapeutic agenda; and 4) it deflected against the interpretation that one may have a certain interest in not remembering. (shrink)

This article extends prior conversation analytic research on the preference organization of sequence-initiating actions. Across two languages, this article examines one such action: explicitly soliciting an account for human conduct. Prior work demonstrates that this action conveys a challenging stance towards the warrantability of the accountable event/conduct. When addressees are somehow responsible for the accountable event/conduct, explicit solicitations of accounts are frequently critical of, and thus embody disaffiliation with, addressees. This article demonstrates that, when explicit solicitations of accounts embody disaffiliation, (...) they are systematically ‘withheld’ and, thus, can be characterized as ‘dispreferred’ actions. This article also examines: a) deviant cases, where account solicitations are not withheld, which is a practice for embodying aggravated disaffiliation; and b) negative cases, where account solicitations actually embody affiliation, and as such are typically treated as preferred actions and not withheld. (shrink)

This article briefly considers the convergence and divergence between Discursive Psychology and Conversation Analysis, in relation to cognition in talk-in-interaction. It explores the possibilities for research that begins from, rather than argues for, a post-cognitive perspective. Drawing in particular on an analysis of a single fragment of conversation, I suggest three analytic areas for researchers concerned both with talk-in-interaction and with cognition: i) the social organization of cognitive displays and embodiments; ii) the production of taken-for-granted culture through ‘internalized social norms’; (...) iii) cognitions made manifest in interaction, as the cognitive infrastructure upon which talk-in-interaction depends. After post-cognitivism, research in these areas can contribute both to scholarly understanding of cognition, and to the emerging discipline of CA. (shrink)