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
- 6 Intention Ascriptions as a Means to Coordinate Own Actions with Others’ Actions
- 7 Strategy Ascriptions in Public Mediation Talks
- 8 Action Ascription and Deonticity in Everyday Advice-Giving Sequences
- 9 “How about Eggs?”
- 10 Action Ascription and Action Assessment
- 11 Actions and Identities in Emergency Calls
- Part III Revisiting Action Ascription
- Book part
- Index
- References
10 - Action Ascription and Action Assessment
Ya-Suffixed Answers to Questions in Mandarin Conversation
from Part II - Practices of 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
- 6 Intention Ascriptions as a Means to Coordinate Own Actions with Others’ Actions
- 7 Strategy Ascriptions in Public Mediation Talks
- 8 Action Ascription and Deonticity in Everyday Advice-Giving Sequences
- 9 “How about Eggs?”
- 10 Action Ascription and Action Assessment
- 11 Actions and Identities in Emergency Calls
- Part III Revisiting Action Ascription
- Book part
- Index
- References
Summary
Taking conversation analysis as its research method, this study investigates the interactional import of the turn-final particle ya in answers to questions in Mandarin conversations. Parasitic on answers to questions, the particle ya is not a syntactically and semantically required component of the turn. The interactional role played by the particle ya in this sequential position is to ascribe collateral effects to or the specific property of the action ascribed, namely, questioning. Specifically speaking, the particle ya does the work of assessment. It is a practice of assessing the prior question as being inapposite, inappropriate or problematic in terms of its presupposition or moral judgement. At the same time, in terms of displaying affect, the particle ya is also a practice of expressing annoyance by the answerer. More generally, this study draws researchers’ attention to the investigation of affect display and action assessment by means of turn-design.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Action Ascription in Interaction , pp. 234 - 255Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Chao, Y. (1968). A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Curl, T. S. & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41 (2), 129–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. (2005). Conversation analysis. In Fitch, K. & Robert, R., eds., Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 71–102.Google Scholar
Drew, P. & Chilton, K. (2000). Calling just to keep in touchy: Regular and habitualised telephone calls as an environment for small talk. In Coupland, J., ed., Small Talk. London: Pearson Education, pp. 137–62.Google Scholar
Drew, P. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1964). Studies of the routine grounds of everyday activities. Social Problems, 11(3), 225–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hepburn, A. & Bolden, G. (2017). Transcribing for Social Research. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984b). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 299–345.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27, 291–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: Practices and methods. In Silverman, D., ed., Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (2013a). Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies, 15(5), 551–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (2013b). Epistemics in conversation. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 370–94.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Raymond, G. (2012). Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In De Ruiter, J. P., ed. Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 179–92.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Sefi, S. (1992). Dilemmas of advice: Aspects of the delivery and reception of advice in interactions between health visitors and first time mothers. In Drew, P. & Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 359–419.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner, G. A., ed. Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitzinger, C. (2013). Repair. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 229–56.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 103–30.Google Scholar
Li, C. & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luke, K. K. (1990). Utterance Particles in Cantonese Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lü, S. X. & Zhu, D. X. (1953). Yufa Xiuci Jianhua (Talks on Grammar and Rhetoric). Beijing: Zhonguo Qingnian.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9, 219–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. & Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 210–28.Google Scholar
Raymond, C. W. & Stivers, T. (2016). The omnirelevance of accountability: Off-record account solicitations. In Robinson, J. D., ed. Accountability in Social Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 321–54.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammatical and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reber, E. (2012). Affectivity in Interaction: Sound Objects in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In Button, G. & Lee, J., eds., Talk and Social Organization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 54–69.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. (1996a). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. In Fox, B., ed., Studies in Anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 437–85.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1996b). Issues of relevance for discourse analysis: contingency in action, interaction and co-participant context. In E. H. Hovy and D. Scott, eds., Computational and Conversational Discourse: Burning Issues – An Interdisciplinary Account. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, pp. 3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, C., Potter, J. & Hepburn, A. (2015). Advice-implicative actions: Using interrogatives and assessments to deliver advice in mundane conversation. Discourse Studies, 17(3), 317–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J. & Enfield, N. J. (2014). The ontology of action, in interaction. In Enfield, N., Kockelman, P. & Sidnell, J., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 423–46.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. (2011). Morality and question design: “Of course” as contesting a presupposition of askability. In Stivers, T., Mondada, L. & Steensig, J., eds., The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 82–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., Mondada, L. & Steensig, J. (2011). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In Stivers, T., Mondada, L. & Steensig, J., eds., The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, L. (1955). Zhongguo Xiandai Yufa (A Modern Grammar of Chinese). Beijing: Zhonghua.Google Scholar
Wu, R. J. R. (2004). Stance in Talk: A Conversation Analysis of Mandarin Final Particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, R. J. R. & Heritage, J. (2017). Particles and epistemics: Convergences and divergences between English and Mandarin. In Raymond, G., Lerner, G. H. & Heritage, J., eds., Enabling Human Conduct. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 273–97.Google Scholar
Yu, G., Wu, Y. & Drew, P. (2019). Couples bickering: Disaffiliation and discord in Chinese conversation. Discourse Studies, 21(4), 458–80.CrossRefGoogle 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.
- 4
- Cited by