Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Fundamentals of Sociopragmatics
- 2 Sociopragmatics
- 3 Inference and Implicature
- 4 Speaker Meaning, Commitment and Accountability
- 5 Social Actions
- 6 Stance and Evaluation
- 7 Reflexivity and Meta-awareness
- 8 Participation and Footing
- 9 Conventionalization and Conventions
- 10 Synchronic and Diachronic Pragmatic Variability
- 11 Activity Types and Genres
- 12 Social Groups and Relational Networks
- Part II Topics and Settings in Sociopragmatics
- Part III Approaches and Methods in Sociopragmatics
- Index
- References
5 - Social Actions
from Part I - Fundamentals of Sociopragmatics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 April 2021
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Fundamentals of Sociopragmatics
- 2 Sociopragmatics
- 3 Inference and Implicature
- 4 Speaker Meaning, Commitment and Accountability
- 5 Social Actions
- 6 Stance and Evaluation
- 7 Reflexivity and Meta-awareness
- 8 Participation and Footing
- 9 Conventionalization and Conventions
- 10 Synchronic and Diachronic Pragmatic Variability
- 11 Activity Types and Genres
- 12 Social Groups and Relational Networks
- Part II Topics and Settings in Sociopragmatics
- Part III Approaches and Methods in Sociopragmatics
- Index
- References
Summary
Social actions are recipient-designed actions that occur in the context of interaction sequences. This chapter focuses on sources and practices for the formation and ascription of social actions. While linguists stress the relevance of linguistic social action formats, conversation analysts highlight the relevance of the sequentialposition of an action, and sociolinguists point to the influence of social identities for action-formation and -ascription. The combination of these three approaches helps us to solve the analytic problem of indirectness, which, however, only rarely becomes a problem for the participants in an interaction themselves. Social properties which recurrently apply when using verbal and bodily resources of action-formation, i.e. the social actions themselves, inferred meanings, projected next actions, the participation framework, the activity type, speaker’s stance, participants’ identities, etc. lead to stable pragmatic connotations of those forms, i.e. action-meanings, which become idiomatic and part of our common-sense competence. Still, social actions are multi-layered and can be ambiguous at times. Therefore, their meaning can be open for negotiation. Intersubjectivity of action ascription is ultimately secured neither by conventions nor by speaker’s intentions, but is accomplished by their treatment in subsequent discourse
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics , pp. 69 - 94Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Antaki, C. and Kent, A. (2012). Telling people what to do (and, sometimes, why): Contingency, entitlement and explanation in staff requests to adults with intellectual impairments. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 876–89.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9(1), 119–53.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2020). Communicating and Relating. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.). (1984). Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Auer, P. (1992). Introduction: John Gumperz’ approach to contextualization. In Auer, P. and Di Luzio, A. (eds.), The Contextualization of Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamin, T. (2012). When problems pass us by: Using “you mean” to help locate the source of trouble. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 82–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals of Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. A. (2007). The Importance of Not Being Earnest: The Feeling behind Laughter and Humor. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996b). Communities, commonalities, and communication. In Gumperz, J. and Levinson, S., eds., Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 324–55.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. and Brennan, S. A. (1991). Grounding in communication. In Resnick, L. B., Levine, J. M. and Teasley, S. D., eds., Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. Washington, DC: APA Books, pp. 127–49.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. and Schaefer, E. F. (1989). Contributing to discourse. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 259–94.Google Scholar
Cohen, P. R. and Perrault, E. (1979). Elements of a plan-based theory of speech acts. Cognitive Science, 3(3), 177–212.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tell us about social action. Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–47.Google Scholar
Craven, A. and Potter, J. (2010). Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, 12(4), 419–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curl, T. S. (2006). Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(8), 1257–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curl, T. S. and Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(2), 129–53.Google Scholar
Davies, B. L., Haugh, M. and Merrison, A. J. (eds.). (2011). Situated Politeness. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2011). Constructions vs. lexical items as sources of complex meanings. A comparative study of constructions with German verstehen. In Auer, P. and Pfänder, S., eds., Constructions: Emerging and Emergent. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 88–126.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2014). Handlungsverstehen und Intentionszuschreibung in der Interaktion I: Intentionsbekundungen mit wollen. In Bergmann, P., Birkner, K., Gilles, P., Spiekermann, H. and Streck, T., eds., Sprache im Gebrauch: räumlich, zeitlich, interaktional. Festschrift für Peter Auer. Heidelberg, Germany: Winter, pp. 309–26.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2015). Retrospection and understanding in interaction. In Deppermann, A. and Günthner, S., eds., Temporality in Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 57–94.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2018a). Changes in turn-design over interactional histories – the case of instructions in driving school lessons. In Deppermann, A. and Streeck, J., eds., Time in Embodied Interaction: Synchronicity and Sequentiality of Multimodal Resources. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 293–324.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2018b). Instruction practices in German driving lessons: Differential uses of declaratives and imperatives. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 265–82.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. and Kaiser, J. (in press). Intention ascriptions as a means to coordinate own actions with others’ actions. In Deppermann, A. and Haugh, M., eds., Action Ascription. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. and Haugh, M. (eds.) (2021). Action Ascription. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (1992). Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 470–520.Google Scholar
Drew, P. and Couper-Kuhlen, E. (eds.). (2014). Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.). (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–65.Google Scholar
Drew, P. and Sorjonen, M. L. (2011). Dialogue in institutional interactions. In van Dijk, T. A., ed., Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, 2nd ed. London: Sage, pp. 191–216.Google Scholar
Drew, P., Hepburn, A., Margutti, P. and Galatolo, R. (eds.). (2016). Apologies in discourse. Discourse Processes, 53(1–2), 114–31.Google Scholar
Duranti, A. (1988). Intentions, language, and social action in a Samoan context. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(1), 13–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, D. (2008). Intentionality and mens rea in police interrogations: the production of actions as crimes. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 177–99.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. and Sidnell, J. (2017a). The concept of action in interaction. Discourse Studies, 19(5), 515–35.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. and Sidnell, J. (2017b). The Concept of Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. and Kockelman, P. (eds.). (2017). Distributed Agency, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feilke, H. (1994). Common-Sense-Kompetenz. Überlegungen zu einer Theorie des »sympathischen« und »natürlichen« Meinens und Verstehens. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2004). Recontextualizing Context: Grammaticality Meets Appropriateness. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2017). Context. In Huang, Y., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 259–76.Google Scholar
Fetzer, A. and Oishi, E. (eds.). (2011). Context and Contexts: Parts Meet Whole? Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1989). Grammatical construction theory and the familiar dichotomies. In Dietrich, R. F. and Graumann, C. F., eds., Language Processing in Social Context. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, B. A. (2007). Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies, 9(3), 299–318.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Golato, A. (2005). Compliments and Compliment Responses: Grammatical Structure and Sequential Organization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. H. (1992). Assessment and the construction of context. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C., eds., Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 147–89.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Grosz, B. J. and Sidner, C. (1990). Plans for discourse. In Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J. and Pollack, M. E., eds., Intentions in Communications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 417–44.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S. and Knoblauch, H. (1995). Culturally patterned speaking practices: The analysis of communicative genres. Pragmatics, 5(1), 1–32.Google Scholar
Haakana, M. (2001). Laughter as a patient’s resource: Dealing with delicate aspects of medical interaction. Text, 21(1–2), 187–219.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2008). The place of intention in the interactional accomplishment of implicature. In Kecskes, I. and Mey, J., eds., Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 45–86.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2013). Speaker meaning and accountability in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 48(1), 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, M. (2017). Implicatures and the inferential substrate. In Cap, P. and Dynel, M., eds., Implicitness: From Lexis to Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 281–304.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: Practices and methods. In Silverman, D., ed., Qualitative Sociology, 3rd ed. London: Sage, pp. 208–30.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2013). Epistemics in conversation. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 370–94.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities and Institutions. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Clayman, S. (2014). Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In Drew, P. and Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 55–86.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In Hymes, D. and Gumperz, J. J., eds., Directions in Sociolinguistics: Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. New York: Winston, Holt and Rinehart, pp. 270–320.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. and Keisanen, T. (2012). Linguistic and embodied formats for making (concrete) offers. Discourse Studies, 14(5), 587–611.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. H. and Drew, P. (2016). Recruitment: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koole, T. (2015). Classroom interaction. In Tracy, K., ed., International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kreckel, M. (1981). Where do constitutive rules for speech acts come from? Language and Communication, 1(1), 73–88.Google Scholar
Lerner, G. H. (1989). Notes on overlap management in conversation: The case of delayed completion. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 53(2), 167–77.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1979). Activity types and language. Linguistics, 17(5–6), 365–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1981). The essential inadequacies of speech act models of dialogue. In Parret, H., Sbisà, M. and Verscheuren, J., eds., Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics: Proceedings of the Conference on Pragmatics, Urbino, July 8–14, 1979. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 473–92.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action-formation and ascription. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 103–30.Google Scholar
Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
Margutti, P., Tainio, L., Drew, P. and Traverso, V. (eds.). (2018). Inviting in telephone calls: A cross-linguistic study of social actions in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 125, 52–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mey, J. L. (2006). Pragmatic acts. In Brown, K., ed., Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 5–11.Google Scholar
Mondada, , L. (2017). Precision timing and timed embeddedness of imperatives in embodied courses of action. In Sorjonen, M.-L., Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Raevaara, L., eds., Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 65–101.Google Scholar
Proske, N. (2017). Perspektivierung von Handlungen und Zuschreibung von Intentionalität durch pseudokoordiniertes kommen. In Deppermann, A., Proske, N. and Zeschel, A., eds., Verben im interaktiven Kontext. Bewegungsverben und mentale Verben im Gesprochenen Deutsch. Tübingen: Narr, pp. 177–247.Google Scholar
Rosaldo, M. Z. (1982). The things we do with words: llongot speech acts and speech act theory in philosophy. Language in Society, 11(2), 203–37.Google Scholar
Rossi, G. (in press). Systems of Social Action: The Case of Requesting in Italian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C. and Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1980). Preliminaries to preliminaries: “Can I ask you a question?” Sociological Inquiry, 50(3–4), 104–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1984). On some questions and ambiguities in conversations. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 28–52.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Reflections of talk and social structure. In Boden, D. and Zimmerman, D. H., eds., Talk and Social Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 44–70.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1295–1345.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1996a). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 104(1), 161–216.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1996b). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A. and Thompson, S. A., eds., Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 52–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 499–545.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L., eds., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic, pp. 59–82.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2014). The architecture of intersubjectivity revisited. In Enfield, N. J., Kockelman, P. and Sidnell, J., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 364–99.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2017). Action in interaction is conduct under a description. Language in Society, 46(3), 313–37.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, M.-L., Raevaara, L. and Couper-Kuhlen, E. (eds.). (2017). Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M. and Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(4), 297–321.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M. and Peräkyläa, A. (2014). Three orders in the organization of human action: On the interface between knowledge, power, and emotion in interaction and social relations. Language in Society, 43(2), 185–207.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. (2005). Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(2), 131–58.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. (2013). Sequence organization. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 191–209.Google Scholar
Stivers, T., Mondada, L. and Steensig, J. (2011). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In Stivers, T., Mondada, L. and Steensig, J., eds., The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. and Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31.Google Scholar
Suchman, L. (2007). Human–Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Svennevig, J. (2018). Decomposing turns to enhance understanding by L2 speakers. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(4), 398–416.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2002). Politeness and formulaicity: Evidence from Cypriot Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 3(1), 179–201.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, M. (2009). On de-limiting context. In Bergs, A. and Diewald, G., eds., Context and Constructions. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 17–42.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A. and Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T. (2015). Critical discourse analysis. In Tannen, D., Hamilton, H. E. and Schiffrin, D., eds., The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 2nd ed. Oxford: John Wiley, pp. 466–85.Google Scholar
Weber, M. ([1922] 1968). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. New York: Bedminster.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig ([1950] 1953). Philosophical Investigations. Translated by Anscombe, G. E. M.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zinken, J. (2016). Requesting Responsibility: The Morality of Grammar in Polish and English Family Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zinken, J. and Deppermann, A. (2017). A cline of visible commitment in the situated design of imperative turns. In M.-L. Sorjonen, , L. Raevaara and Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Imperative Turns at Talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 27–63.Google Scholar
- 4
- Cited by