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
8 - Participation and Footing
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
This chapter addresses the notion of participation by examining it at four different angles of view which we label, in order of roughly widening scope, utterance, talk, event and interaction. We start with the narrowest scope, involving the simplest possible notions of participant role – that of a producer and a receiver. Then, employing and stretching Goffman's notions of footing, production format and participation framework, we gradually widen the scope, putting an ever-increasing amount of flesh on, breaking down into various constituent parts and even questioning the integrity of these bare bones. At the widest scope, there comes a point when the bare bones seem to dissolve, and yet participation with interpersonal and interactive consequences can still be discerned. After proceeding to some considerations of participation in technology-mediated communication, we conclude with some suggestions concerning approaches to the identification of participant roles in the analysis of interaction.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics , pp. 140 - 161Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Auer, P. (2009). Context and contextualization. In Verschueren, J. and Östman, J-O., eds., Key Notions for Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 86–101.Google Scholar
Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language and Society, 13(2), 145–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, M. S. (2014). (New) participatory framework on YouTube? Commenter interaction in US political speeches. Journal of Pragmatics, 72, 46–58.Google Scholar
Chovanec, J. and Dynel, M. (2015). Researching interactional forms and participant structures in public and social media. In Dynel, M. and Chovanec, J., eds., Participation in Public and Social Media Interactions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. and Schaefer, E. F. (1992). Dealing with overhearers. In Clark, H. H., ed., Arenas of Language Use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 248–73.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. (2007). Speaking on behalf of the public in broadcast news interviews. In Holt, E. and Clift, R., eds., Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 221–43.Google Scholar
Davies, B. (2018). Evaluating evaluations: What different types of metapragmatic behaviour can tell us about participants’ understandings of the moral order. Journal of Politeness Research, 14(1), 121–51.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2010). Not hearing things – Hearer/listener categories in polylogues, http://mediazioni.sitlec.unibo.it.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2011). ‘You talking to me?’ The viewer as a ratified listener to film discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1628–44.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2014). Participation framework underlying YouTube interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 73, 37–52.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. and Chovanec, J. (eds.). (2015). Participation in Public and Social Media Interactions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P., Fernández-Amaya, L. and de la O Hernández-López, M. (eds.). (2019). Technology Mediated Service Encounters. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1963). Behaviour in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1964). The neglected situation. American Anthropologist, 66(6, part II), 133–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Harmondsworth, UK: Peregrine Books.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. ([1979] 1981a). Footing. In Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 124–59. (Originally published in Semiotica, 25, 1–29.)Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981b). Radio talk. In Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 197–327.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2007). Interactive footing. In Holt, E. and Clift, R., eds., Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 16–46.Google Scholar
Halvorsen, K. and Sarangi, S. (2015). Team decision-making in workplace meetings: The interplay of activity roles and discourse roles. Journal of Pragmatics, 76, 1–14.Google Scholar
Hanks, W. F. (1990). Referential Practice: Language and Lived Space among the Maya. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Hanks, W. F. (1996). Exorcism and the description of participant roles. In Silverstein, M. and Urban, G., eds., Natural Histories of Discourse. Chicago: Chicago University Press, pp. 160–200.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2013). Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 52–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, E. (2009). Reported speech. In D’hondt, S., Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., The Pragmatics of Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 190–205.Google Scholar
Holt, E. (in preparation). Reporting a rant: Loosely portrayed speech in interaction.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. (2014). Communicative affordances and participation frameworks in mediated interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 72, 86–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In Gumperz, J. and Hymes, D., eds., Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, pp. 35–71.Google Scholar
Irvine, J. T. (1996). Shadow conversations: The indeterminacy of participant roles. In Silverstein, M. and Urban, G., eds., Natural Histories of Discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 131–59.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. (2010). ‘In curtesie was set ful muchel hir lest’: Politeness in Middle English. In Culpeper, J. and Kádár, D. Z., eds., Historical (Im)politeness. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 175–200.Google Scholar
Kádár, D. and Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G. and Short, M. ([1981] 2007). Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose. 2nd ed. London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. ([1979] 1992). Activity types and language. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 66–100. (Originally in Linguistics, 17, 365–99.)Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1988). Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’ concepts of participation. In Drew, P. and Wootton, A., eds., Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 161–227.Google Scholar
Marcoccia, M. (2004). On-line polylogues: Conversation structure and participation framework in internet newsgroups. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(1), 115–45.Google Scholar
Meyrowitz, J. (1990). Redefining the situation: Extending dramaturgy into a theory of social change and media effects. In Riggens, S. H., ed., Beyond Goffman: Studies on Communication, Institution and Social Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 65–98.Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, J. (2009). Erving Goffman. In D’hondt, S., Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., The Pragmatics of Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 79–95.Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, J. (2013). Situational transformations: The offensive-izing of an email message and the public-ization of offensiveness. Pragmatics and Society, 4(3), 369–87.Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, J. (2018). Dances with footings: A Goffmanian perspective on the Soto case. Journal of Politeness Research, 14(1), 39–62.Google Scholar
Rampton, B. and Eley, L. (2018). Goffman and the everyday interactional grounding of surveillance. Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacies, 246.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloeff, E. A. and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.Google Scholar
Sarangi, S. and Slembrouck, S. (1996). Language, Bureaucracy and Social Control. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Saville-Troike, M. (1989). The Ethnography of Communication. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70, 1075–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scollon, R. (1996). Discourse identity, social identity, and confusion in intercultural communication. Intercultural Communication Studies, 6(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
Shannon, C. and Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2009). Participation. In D’hondt, S., Östman, J.-O. and Verschueren, J., eds., The Pragmatics of Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 125–56.Google Scholar