Counter
| Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Counter | |
|---|---|
| Author(s): | Jessica S. Robles (Loughborough University, UK) (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2360-650X) & Jack B. Joyce (University of Oxford, UK) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9499-1471) |
| To cite: | Joyce, Jack B., & Robles, Jessica S. (2026). Counter. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/N3J5X |
A counter is a disaligning responsive action that in some way undermines the action trajectory of an initiating action. It is used in the literature in roughly three senses. First, in its narrowest sense, as articulated by Schegloff (2007: 16-19), a counter is a turn in which, following a first-pair part, does not provide a type-matched second-pair part but instead redirects the same action to the speaker of the first-pair part.
(1) Adapted from Schegloff (2007: 17) 01 Chi: What’s this 02 Mom: er::m (.) yo[u t]ell me: what is it 03 Chi: [◦()◦] 04 (1.0) 05 Chi: z:e:bra 06 Mom: zebra:: ye:s
In this example, the child’s question (“what’s this”) is directed to the mother. In response, Mom does not provide an answer, but instead counters it by redirecting the same question back to the child (line 2) in an instructional manner.
The second sense in which ‘counter’ is used in conversation analytic research refers to responsive actions that accomplish the “same” action as the prior, but with some oppositional valence or direction. With these, “counter” is used as a qualifier for the second action in response to (and as a way of transforming) the first. These include, for example, assessments and counter-assessments, complaints and counter-complaints, claims and counter-claims, and so on (e.g., Maynard, 1989; Theobald, 2013; Wilkinson et al., 2023). An example of a counter-claim appears in the extract below. Prior to this, Angie tacitly accused her housemate Estelle of interrupting her.
(2) Adapted from Haugh & Sinkeviciute (2019: 213) 36 E: I’m not h- I’m not arguing with you I’m just 37 saying we were <both speaking> at the same 38 ti:[me] 39 A: [o:]kay. #I just felt like I was just mid 40 conversation just then# 41 G: ((bangs cans on the table)) 42 E: I: was as well though
Estelle denies “arguing with [Angie]” and instead formulates her overlap in neutral terms as “we were both speaking at the same time” (lines 37-38). Angie then justifies her prior accusation by claiming that she “just felt like I was just mid conversation just then” (lines 39-40). This is met with a counter-claim by Estelle, who claims the same action (being in mid-conversation) but with the source self-attributed (line 42, “I was as well though”).
The third sense in which ‘counter is used refers to any subsequent action that resists, reanalyses, rebukes, or otherwise reformulates the action to which it is responding. For example, a speaker can respond to a complaint by suggesting that it is a feature of the complainant's disposition, and thereby they can counter the seriousness of the complaint (Edwards, 2005). This is a broader use of “counter” used to describe actions in some conversation analytic literature. It generally shares the important quality with the narrower sense in that it appears where a second pair part would be expected, but does not provide a type-matched second pair part action. An example below shows how this is accomplished through sequential blocking. Here, Nick, the radio host (HOS) asks the interviewee (Sam) a yes-no question about Sam’s wife being “mo::re #ehh: r:e#laxed (.) than you:” (line 32). This question seems to be read by Sam as ‘not innocent’, and instead of answering with a yes/no response, he counters with a rebuke (lines 33-34).
(3) (Joyce, 2022: 237) 32 Hos: is she mo::re #ehh: r:e#laxed (.) than you: 33 Sam: Nick it’s none of your £busin’ss about my wife£ 34 to be fair (.) yeah £we’re on radio yeah£ 35 Hos: ahright okay
In this example, the host is raising a question in order to “set up” a subsequent challenging question--an enticing sequence (see Reynolds, 2015). However, Sam seems to anticipate this and moves to block progress toward the third turn by refusing to answer the question. He counters the projected sequence by turning a reproach back on the host (Nick) about the appropriateness of asking the set-up question in the first place, which results in a concession (line 35) rather than wherever the host’s question may have been heading.
The previous example also illustrates how, by providing an alternative subsequent action that undermines the prior in some way, counters may constitute disaffiliation or disagreement (Muntigl, 2013; Weatherall & Keevallik, 2016) that, respectively, distances the interlocutor from supporting the other, or rejects some component of the subject matter of their talk. They also disrupt expectations of cooperation, which provides counters a particularly moral dimension by making them accountable actions in social life (Huma, Joyce & Raymond, 2023).
Counters may be seen as a way of “not responding” to an initiating action (for example, a non-answer to a question). Because countering actions are often oriented to as disaffiliative, their design and response may contain features of dispreferred talk, such as being accompanied by an account (Pillet-Shore, 2017). In the following example, game players engage in a series of counters around the legitimacy of a particular move and its cooperative (versus selfish) function in the game. The claims and counter-claims players make (lines 44, 45, 47) lead up to the accounts from Dave (lines 50, 52-53) for having made the contestable move.
(4) (Hofstetter & Robles, 2019: 314) 44 Dav: =[That ↑is helping him:. 45 Cal: ↑↑No::. It’s ↑actually ↑no:t. 46 Dav: He’[s ne:xt. 47 Cal: [It’s helping you. 48 (0.7) 49 Al: .hhh (h)ee(h)eeh 50 Dav: I: d- have no: expect- >I’m not getting any points this turn:. 51 Cal: Ye:s, 52 Dav: I’m not gonna get that many more points.=Cause I can’t spread out 53 fast enough. 54 Cal: Uhuh, 55 Dav: I’m not ex↑pecting to win:. 56 (0.5) 57 Cal: Okay.
If counters engender subsequent counters, this can result in a sequence of counters where the projected trajectory of the sequence is constantly changing, leading to a “sequential standoff” and a deterioration of the interaction (Raymond, Chen & Whitehead, 2023). Therefore, counters may become resources in the accomplishment of resistance, either to a particular turn or across sequences, because they often constitute some disruption to progressivity.
Additional Related Entries:
Cited References:
Clayman, S. E. (1993). Reformulating the question: A device for answering/not answering questions in news interviews and press conferences. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 13(2), 159-188.
Edwards, D. (2005). Moaning, whinging and laughing: The subjective side of complaints. Discourse Studies, 7(1), 5-29.
Glenn, P. (2019). Conflict interaction: Insights from conversation analysis. In The Routledge handbook of language in conflict (pp. 215-245). Routledge.
Haugh, M., & Sinkeviciute, V. (2019). Offence and conflict talk. In The Routledge handbook of language in conflict (pp. 196-214). Routledge.
Hofstetter, E., & Robles, J. (2019). Manipulation in board game interactions: Being a sporting player. Symbolic Interaction, 42(2), 301-320.
Humă, B., Joyce, J. B., & Raymond, G. (2023). What does “resistance” actually look like? The respecification of resistance as an interactional accomplishment. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 42(5-6), 497-522.
Joyce, J. B. (2022). Resistance in public disputes: Third-turn blocking to suspend progressivity. Discourse Studies, 24(2), 231-248.
Maynard, D. W. (1989). Perspective‐display sequences in conversation. Western Journal of Communication, 53(2), 91-113.
Muntigl, P. (2013). Resistance in couples counselling: Sequences of talk that disrupt progressivity and promote disaffiliation. Journal of Pragmatics, 49(1), 18-37.
Pillet–Shore, D. (2017). Preference organization. In J. Nussbaum (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of communication. Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.132
Raymond, G., Chen, J., & Whitehead, K. A. (2023). Sequential standoffs in police encounters with the public. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 42(5-6), 653-678.
Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31-57.
Theobald, M. (2013). Ideas as “possessitives”: Claims and counter claims in a playground dispute. Journal of Pragmatics, 45(1), 1-12.
Weatherall, A., & Keevallik, L. (2016). When claims of understanding are less than affiliative. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(3), 167-182.
Wilkinson, R., Bouchard, J., Temer, V. G., Kamunen, A., Katila, J., Xavier, C. C. M., & Sterie, A. (2023). Participation within multiparty conversation: Responses to indirect complaints about a co-present participant. In New Perspectives on Goffman in Language and Interaction (pp. 195-216). Routledge.
Additional References:
