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
9 - “How about Eggs?”
Action Ascription in the Family Decision-Making Process While Grocery Shopping at a Supermarket
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
By examining sequences in which families consisting of parents and their children make decisions on what to purchase while grocery shopping, this chapter explores how an incongruence between the deontic stance expressed through a speaker’s utterance and the deontic status ordinarily associated with that speaker provides resources for the recipients’ action ascription. Our data show that when the father and the children initiate a decision-making sequence, they are commonly treated by the mother as having less rights to decide what to purchase, while the mother is regularly treated by the father (and the children) as having stronger rights concerning purchase decision making. From this observation, we argue that the father and the children are ordinarily associated with a weaker deontic status with regard to purchase decision making while the mother is associated with a stronger deontic status. Sometimes, however, the father and the children use a grammatical format that indexes a deontic stance that is not consistent with their weaker deontic status. We demonstrate that this incongruence between deontic stance and deontic status provides resources for the mother to respond in such a way as to display her inference about the action performed by the father or the children.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Action Ascription in Interaction , pp. 208 - 233Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (2017). Interactional Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2018). Inferential practices in social interaction: A conversationanalytic account. Open Linguistics, 4(1), 1–37.Google Scholar
De Stefani, E. (2013). The collaborative organisation of next actions in a semiotically rich environment: Shopping as a couple. In P. Haddington, Mondada, L. & Nevile, M., eds., Interaction and Mobility: Language and the Body in Motion. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 123–51.Google Scholar
De Stefani, E. (2014). Establishing joint orientation towards commercial objects in a self-service store: How practices of categorisation matter. In Nevile, M., Haddington, P., Heinemann, T. & Rauniomaa, M., eds., Interacting with Objects: Language, Materiality, and Social Activity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 271–94.Google Scholar
De Stefani, E. (forthcoming). Approaching the counter: Situated decision-making of couples shopping in a supermarket. In Fox, B. A., Mondada, L. & Sorjonen, M.-L., eds., Encounters at the counter: Language, embodiment and material objects in shops. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. & Sidnell, J. (2017). The Concept of Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hayashi, M. (2009). Marking a “noticing of departure” in talk: Eh-prefaced turns in Japanese conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(10), 2100–29.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2013). Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies, 15, 551–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, M. & Ruus, R. (2014). Pre‐schoolers, parents and supermarkets: Co‐shopping as a social practice. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(1), 119–26.Google Scholar
Kidwell, M. & Zimmerman, D. H. (2007). Joint attention as action. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(3), 592–611.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1973). The Structure of the Japanese language, Vol. 3. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Laurier, E. (2008). Drinking up endings: Conversational resources of the café. Language & Communication, 28(2), 165–81.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
Sacks, H. (1972). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In Sudnow, D., ed., Studies in Social Interaction. New York, NY: The Free Press, pp. 31–74.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, M.-L. & Raevaara, L. (2014). On the grammatical form of requests at the convenience store: Requesting as embodied action. In Drew, P. & Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 243–68.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M. (2011). Participants’ deontic rights and action formation: The case of declarative requests for action. Interaction and Linguistic Structures (InLiSt), 52, 1–37.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M. (2012). Establishing joint decisions in a dyad. Discourse Studies, 14(6), 779–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, M. (2013). Deontic rights in interaction: A conversation analytic study on authority and cooperation. Dissertation, University of Helsinki.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(3), 297–321.Google Scholar
Takagi, T. (2001). Sequence management in Japanese child-adult interactions. Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Webster, F. E. & Wind, Y. (1972). Organizational Buying Behavior. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.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.
- 4
- Cited by