The uses of formulation in cognitive psychotherapy and psychoanalysis were compared, by means of conversation analysis, using 53 audio-recorded sessions as data. Two formulation types were found in both approaches: highlighting formulations, which recycle the client's descriptions and recognize therapeutically dense material, and rephrasing formulations, which offer the therapist's version of the client's description and focus on subjective experiences. These formulations may be interactional bearers of common factors in psychotherapy. Two other formulation types were exclusive to one or another approach. Relocating formulations, found only in psychoanalysis, propose that the experiences in the client's narratives are connected to experiences at other times or places. Exaggerating formulations, found only in cognitive psychotherapy, exaggerate the client's talk by recasting it as something that is apparently implausible. The contrast between relocating and exaggerating formulations suggests that, despite recent theories in the two approaches being more compatible, interactional differences still exist between cognitive psychotherapy and psychoanalysis.

To investigate the prosodic aspects of therapists' empathic communication. 70 audio-recorded sessions of cognitive psychotherapy and psychoanalysis were analysed using conversation analysis. Two interactional trajectories where the therapists either validated the clients' emotions or challenged them were identified. The difference between these trajectories was not evident in the lexical composition of the therapists' formulations that initiated the trajectory. However, the prosodic features of the formulation already anticipated the direction of the trajectory. The formulations leading up to the validating trajectory were characterized by prosodic continuity and formulations leading up to the challenging trajectory by prosodic disjuncture. The choice between continuous and disjunctive prosody was a key resource for therapists in the construction of formulations as either validating or challenging. The present article emphasizes the relational aspects of psychotherapy communication by considering the prosodic features of the therapist's talk in relation to the prosody of the client.

University students seek counseling to discuss concerns about their academic skills, motivation, time management and well-being. This article examines the conversational activity of normalizing recurrently used by counselors to manage students’ negative emotions and troubles-telling. Normalizing refers to an activity in which something in the interaction is made normal by labeling it ‘normal’ or ‘commonplace’ or by interpreting it in an ordinary way. Three uses for normalizing were identified in a sample of 16 videotaped counseling sessions: (1) supporting the student’s position, (2) challenging the student and (3) presenting the student’s problem as workable. We argue that normalizing is a means of addressing students’ problematic emotions and offering support, yet in a way that maintains an orientation toward problem solving. Furthermore, while normalizing seems to serve affiliation, suggesting that the problems are not unique, it can be treated either as delicate or as problematic by the counselors and by the students.