Action Ascription in Social Interaction

doi:10.1017/9781108673419.001

1 - Action Ascription in Social Interaction

from Introduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2022

Arnulf Deppermann and

Michael Haugh

Edited by

Arnulf Deppermann and

Michael Haugh

Show author details

Arnulf Deppermann: Affiliation:
Universität Mannheim, Germany
Michael Haugh: Affiliation:
University of Queensland

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Action ascription can be understood from two broad perspectives. On one view, it refers to the ways in which actions constitute categories by which members make sense of their world, and forms a key foundation for holding others accountable for their conduct. On another view, it refers to the ways in which we accountably respond to the actions of others, thereby accomplishing sequential versions of meaningful social experience. In short, action ascription can be understood as matter of categorisation of prior actions or responding in ways that are sequentially fitted to prior actions, or both. In this chapter, we review different theoretical approaches to action ascription that have developed in the field, as well as the key constituents and resources of action ascription that have been identified in conversation analytic research, before going on to discuss how action ascription can itself be considered a form of social action.

Keywords

social action speech acts action formation action ascription intersubjectivity accountability inference

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Action Ascription in Interaction , pp. 3 - 28

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108673419.001 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Antaki, C. (2004). Reading minds or dealing with interactional implications? Theory and Psychology, 14, 667–83.CrossRef 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. (2010). Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2078–105.Google Scholar

Arundale, R. B. (2020). Communicating and Relating: Constituting Face in Everyday Interacting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bögels, S., Kendrick, K. & Levinson, S. C. (2020). Conversational expectations get revised as response latencies unfold. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35(6), 766–99.Google Scholar

Brandom, R. B. (1994). Making It Explicit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Brandom, R. B. (2014). Intentionality and language. In Enfield, N., Kockelman, P. & Sidnell, J., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 347–63.Google Scholar

Clark, H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Clark, H. & Carlson, T. (1982). Hearers and speech acts. Language, 58, 332–73.CrossRef Google Scholar

Clayman, S. & Heritage, J. (2014). Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In Drew, P. & Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 55–86.Google Scholar

Clift, R. (2016). Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Coulter, J. (1983). Contingent and a priori structures in sequential analysis. Human Studies, 6(1), 361–74.Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tell us about social action? Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–47.Google Scholar

Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Deppermann, A. (2012). How does ‘cognition’ matter to the analysis of talk-in-interaction? Language Sciences, 34(6), 746–67.CrossRef Google Scholar

Deppermann, A. (2014). Multimodal participation in simultaneous joint projects: Interpersonal and intrapersonal coordination in paramedic emergency drills. In Haddington, P., Keisanen, T., Mondada, L. & Nevile, M., eds., Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 247–82.Google Scholar

Deppermann, A. (2015). Retrospection and understanding in interaction. In Deppermann, A. & Günthner, S., eds., Temporality in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 57–94.Google Scholar

Deppermann, A. (2018). Inferential practices in social interaction: A conversation-analytic account. Open Linguistics, 4(1), 35–55.CrossRef Google Scholar

Drew, P. (1984). Speakers’ reportings in invitation sequences. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 129–51.Google Scholar

Drew, P. (2011). Reflections on the micro-politics of social action, in interaction. Paper presented at the 12th International Pragmatics Association Conference, University of Manchester.Google Scholar

Drew, P. (2018). Inferences and indirectness in interaction. Open Linguistics, 4(1), 241–59.CrossRef Google Scholar

Drew, P. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014a). Requesting – from speech act to recruitment. In Drew, P. & Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–34.Google Scholar

Drew, P. & Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds. (2014b). Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Duranti, A. (1988). Intentions, language, and social action in a Samoan context. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(1), 13–33.CrossRef Google Scholar

Duranti, A. (2015). The Anthropology of Intentions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Edwards, D. (2006). Discourse and Cognition. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Edwards, D. (2008). Intentionality and mens rea in police interrogations: The production of actions as crimes. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 177–99.CrossRef Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. (2013). Relationship Thinking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. & Sidnell, J. (2017a). The Concept of Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Enfield, N. J. & Sidnell, J. (2017b). On the concept of action in the study of interaction. Discourse Studies, 19, 515–35.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fox, B. (2007). Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies, 9(3), 299–318.Google Scholar

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Garfinkel, H. & Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical action. In McKinney, J. C. & Tiryakian, E. A., eds., Theoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts, pp. 338–66.Google Scholar

Gibbs, R. W. Jr (1999). Intentions in the Experience of Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gisladottir, R., Bögels, S. & Levinson, S. C. (2018). Oscillatory brain responses reflect anticipation during comprehension of speech acts in spoken dialogue. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12, 34, doi:10.3389/fnhum.2018.00034.Google Scholar

Gisladottir, R., Chwilla, D. & Levinson, S. C. (2015). Conversation electrified: ERP correlates of speech act recognition in underspecified utterances. PLoS One, 10(3): e0120068.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1976). Replies and responses. Language in Society, 5(3), 257–313.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–522.CrossRef Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. (2013) The co-operative, transformative organisation of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 8–23.CrossRef Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. (2017). Co-operative Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Ways of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Hakulinen, A. & Sorjonen, M.-L. (2012). Being equivocal: Affective responses left unspecified. In Peräkylä, A. & Sorjonen, M.-L., eds., Emotion in Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 147–73.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. (2008). The place of intention in the interactional achievement of implicature. In Kecskes, I. & Mey, J., eds., Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 45–85.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. (2013). Speaker meaning and accountability in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 48(1), 41–56.Google Scholar

Haugh, M. (2017). Implicatures and the inferential substrate. In Cap, P. & Dynel, M., eds., Implicitness: From Lexis to Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 281–304.CrossRef Google Scholar

Haugh, M. & Jaszczolt, K. M. (2012). Speaker intentions and intentionality. In Allan, K. & Jaszczolt, K. M., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 87–112.Google Scholar

Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.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. (2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.Google Scholar

Heritage, J. (2012b). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30–52.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hindmarsh, J. & Pilnick, A. (2002). The tacit order of teamwork: Collaboration and embodied conduct in anaesthesia. The Sociological Quarterly, 43(2), 139–64.Google Scholar

Holler, J., Kendrick, K. & Levinson, S. C. (2018). Processing language in face-to-face conversation: Questions with gestures get faster responses. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(5), 1900–8.Google Scholar

Hömke, P., Holler, J. & Levinson, S. C. (2018). Eye blinks are perceived as communicative signals in human face-to-face interaction. PLoS One, 13(12): e0208030.Google Scholar

Jayyusi, L. (1991). Values and moral judgement: Communicative praxis as moral order. In Button, G., ed., Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 227–51.Google Scholar

Jefferson, G. (1990). List-construction as a task and a resource. In Psathas, G., ed., Interaction Competence. Washington, DC: University Press of America, pp. 63–92.Google Scholar

Jefferson, G., Sacks, H. & Schegloff, E. (1977). Preliminary notes on the sequential organization of laughter. Pragmatics microfiche. Cambridge University.Google Scholar

Kendrick, K. & Drew, P. (2014). The putative preference for offers over requests. In Drew, P. & Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 87–114.Google Scholar

Kendrick, K. & Drew, P. (2016). Recruitment: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(1), 1–19.Google Scholar

Kendrick, K., Brown, P., Dingemanse, M. et al. (2020). Sequence organisation: A universal infrastructure for social action. Journal of Pragmatics, 168, 119–38.Google Scholar

Kevoe-Feldman, H. & Robinson, J. D. (2012). Exploring essentially three-turn courses of action: An institutional case study with implications for ordinary talk. Discourse Studies, 14(2), 217–41.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (1981). The essential inadequacies of speech act models of dialogue. In Parret, H., Sbisà, M. & 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. (2006). On the human “interaction engine.” In Enfield, N. J. & Levinson, S. C., eds., Roots of Human Sociality. Oxford: Berg, pp. 39–69.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 103–30.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (2017). Speech acts. In Huang, Y., ed., Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 199–216.Google Scholar

Linell, P. (1998). Approaching Dialogue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Mondada, L. (2014). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 137–56.Google Scholar

Pillet-Shore, D. (2016). Criticizing another’s child: How teachers evaluate students during parent–teacher conferences. Language in Society, 45(1), 33–58.Google Scholar

Pillet-Shore, D. (2021). When to make the sensory social: Registering in face-to-face openings. Symbolic Interaction, 44(1), 10–39, doi:10.1002/symb.481.CrossRef Google Scholar

Pomerantz, A. (2017). Inferring the purpose of a prior query and responding accordingly. In Raymond, G., Lerner, G. & Heritage, J., eds., Enabling Human Conduct: Studies of Talk-in-Interaction in Honour of Emanuel A. Schegloff. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 61–76.Google Scholar

Potter, J. & Edwards, D. (2013). Conversation analysis and psychology. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 701–25.Google Scholar

Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939–67.Google Scholar

Robinson, J. D. (ed.) (2016). Accountability in Social Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Rosaldo, M. (1982). The things we do with words: Ilongot speech acts and speech act theory in philosophy. Language in Society, 11(2), 203–37.Google Scholar

Rossi, G. (2015). The request system in Italian interaction (Ph.D. dissertation). Nijmegen: Radboud University.Google Scholar

Rossi, G. (2018). Composite social actions: The case of factual declaratives in everyday interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(4), 379–97.Google Scholar

Sacks, H. (1963). Sociological description. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 8, 1–16.Google Scholar

Sacks, H. (1985). The inference-making machine. In van Dijk, T., ed., Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Academic Press, pp. 13–23.Google Scholar

Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation. 2 vols. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. (1984). On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 28–52.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. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In Boden, D. & Zimmerman, D., 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), 1295–345.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. (1995). Discourse as an interactional achievement III: The omnirelevance of action. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(3), 185–211.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 104(1), 161–216.Google 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. (1998). Reply to Wetherell. Discourse & Society, 9(3), 413–16.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. (2000). On granularity. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 715–20.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. (2006). On possibles. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 141–57.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. (2010). Commentary on Stivers and Rossano: Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 38–48.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schütz, A. (1976). The social world and the theory of social action. In Brodersen, A., ed., A. Schütz, Collected Papers Volume 3: Studies in Social Theory. Berlin: Springer, pp. 3–19.Google Scholar

Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Searle, J. & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Seuren, L. M. (2018). Assessing answers: Action ascription in third position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 33–51.Google Scholar

Sidnell, J. (2014). The architecture of intersubjectivity revisited. In Enfield, N. J., Kockelman, P. & 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.CrossRef Google 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

Sorjonen, M.-L., Raevaara, L. & Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds. (2017). Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Stevanovic, M. & 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. & Peräkylä, 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. & Rossano, F. (2010a). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31.Google Scholar

Stivers, T. & Rossano, F. (2010b). A scalar view of response relevance. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 49–56.Google Scholar

Szczepek-Reed, B. & Raymond, G., eds. (2013). Units of Talk – Units of Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Thompson, S., Fox, B. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tomasello, M. (2008). Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Weber, M. (1968[1922]). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. New York, NY: Bedminster.Google Scholar

Zinken, J. (2016). Requesting Responsibility: The Morality of Grammar in Polish and English Family Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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.