Book contents
- Action Ascription in Interaction
- Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics
- Action Ascription in Interaction
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Constituents of Action Ascription
- Part II Practices of Action Ascription
- Part III Revisiting Action Ascription
- 12 Action and Accountability in Interaction
- 13 The Multiple Accountabilities of Action
- Book part
- Index
- References
12 - Action and Accountability in Interaction
from Part III - Revisiting Action Ascription
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2022
Book contents
- Action Ascription in Interaction
- Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics
- Action Ascription in Interaction
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Constituents of Action Ascription
- Part II Practices of Action Ascription
- Part III Revisiting Action Ascription
- 12 Action and Accountability in Interaction
- 13 The Multiple Accountabilities of Action
- Book part
- Index
- References
Summary
What is the relation between words and action? How does a person decide, based on what someone is saying, what an appropriate response would be? We argue: (1) Every move combines independent semiotic features, to be interpreted under an assumption that social behaviour is goal-directed; (2) Responding to actions is not equivalent to describing them; (3) Describing actions invokes rights and duties for which people are explicitly accountable. We conclude that interaction does not involve a binning procedure in which the stream of conduct is sorted into discrete action types. Our argument is grounded in data from recordings of talk-in-interaction.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Action Ascription in Interaction , pp. 279 - 296Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Clark, H. & Fox Tree, J. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84, 73–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–47.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Curl, T. & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41, 129–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, M. & Floyd, S. (2014). Conversation across cultures. In Enfield, N., Kockelman, P. & Sidnell, J., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 447–80.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, M., Roberts, S. G., Baranova, J. et al. (2015). Universal principles in the repair of communication problems. PLOS ONE 10(9), e013610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dingemanse, M., Rossi, G. & Floyd, S. (2017). Place reference in story beginnings: A cross-linguistic study of narrative and interactional affordances. Language in Society, 46(2), 129–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2013). Relationship Thinking: Agency, Enchrony, and Human Sociality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2017). How We Talk: The Inner Workings of Conversation, New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. & Kockelman, P., eds. (2017). Distributed Agency. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J. & Sidnell, J. (2017). The Concept of Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Floyd, S., Rossi, G. & Enfield, N. J., eds. (2020). Getting Others to Do Things: A Pragmatic Typology of Recruitments. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1952). The Perception of the Other: A Study in Social Order. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. (1992). On Social Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1979). The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In Psathas, G., ed., Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York, NY: Irvington Publishers, pp. 97–121.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
Jakobson, R. ([1957]1971). Shifters, verbals categories, and the Russian verb. In Jakobson, R., ed., Selected Writings II: Word and Language. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 130–47.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In Schenkein, J., ed., Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York, NY: Academic Press, pp. 219–48.Google Scholar
Krebs, J. & Dawkins, R. (1984). Animal signals: Mind-reading and manipulation. In Krebs, J. and Davies, N., eds., Behavioural Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, 2nd ed. London: Blackwell, pp. 380–405.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 103–30.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (2017). Speech acts. In Huang, Y., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 199–216.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. (2004). Prompting action: The stand-alone “so” in sequences of talk-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(2), 185–218.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. D. (2016). Accountability in social interaction. In Robinson, J. D., ed., Accountability in Social Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossano, F. (2012). Gaze behaviour in face-to-face interaction. Dissertation, Radboud University, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Rumsey, A. (1990). Wording, meaning, and linguistic ideology. American Anthropologist, 92(2), 346–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on Conversation, Volume 1. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H. & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons and their interaction. In Psathas, G., ed., Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York, NY: Irvington, pp. 15–21.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of “uh huh” and other things that come between sentences. In Tannen, D., ed., Analysing Discourse: Text and Talk. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 71–93.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Description in the social sciences I: Talk-in-interaction. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics, 2(1–2), 1–24.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), 1295–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102(1), 161–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes, 23(3), 499–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2006). Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language, and the arena in which culture is enacted. In Enfield, N. J. & Levinson, S. C., eds., Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition, and Interaction. Oxford: Berg, pp. 70–96.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2009). Prolegomena to the analysis of action(s) in talk-in-interaction. Paper presented at LISO, University of California Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2010). Some other u(h)ms. Discourse Processes, 47(2), 130–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. (1983). Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2009). Comparative perspectives in conversation analysis. In Sidnell, J., ed., Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–33.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2017). Action in interaction is conduct under a description. Language in Society, 46(3), 313–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J. & Enfield, N. J. (2012). Language diversity and social action: a third locus of linguistic relativity. Current Anthropology, 53(3), 302–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. In Clyne, P., Hanks, W. & Hofbauer, C., eds., The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 193–247.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, G. (2012). Coordination and interpretation of vocal and visible resources: ‘Trail-off’ conjunctions. Language and Speech, 55(1), 141–63.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 6
- Cited by