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
- 2 Temporal Organization and Procedure in Ascribing Action
- 3 The Micro-Politics of Social Actions
- 4 Action Ascription, Accountability and Inference
- 5 Attributing the Decision to Buy
- Part II Practices of Action Ascription
- Part III Revisiting Action Ascription
- Book part
- Index
- References
3 - The Micro-Politics of Social Actions
from Part I - Constituents of Action Ascription
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2022
By
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
- 2 Temporal Organization and Procedure in Ascribing Action
- 3 The Micro-Politics of Social Actions
- 4 Action Ascription, Accountability and Inference
- 5 Attributing the Decision to Buy
- Part II Practices of Action Ascription
- Part III Revisiting Action Ascription
- Book part
- Index
- References
Summary
My starting point is that certain actions are ‘valued’ over others, in ways that are not restricted to pairs of possible actions (therefore not restricted to adjacency pairs). For instance, it may be regarded in certain corporate and political worlds as better to have ‘resigned’ than to have been fired. The micro-politics of social action is evident in the manoeuvres by which participants implement or avoid certain actions, always remembering that the relative value of an action is a situated attribute. I consider some of the systematic ways in which participants ‘position’ themselves with respect to certain action environments. From among the varied ways participants manoeuvre and position themselves regarding implementing and avoiding action, three stand out: (i) avoiding taking an action, in such a way that the other responds as though the (absent action) implication had been performed (other’s ascription to self of an action self might have been avoiding); (ii) disguising an action, through (mis)attributing to one’s own speech an action which may differ from the action that is thereby implemented (self-ascription); and (iii) treating a prior turn/action as having been what it was not officially designed to be/do (denying, disclaiming, ‘misattributing’ actions) (other-ascription).
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Action Ascription in Interaction , pp. 57 - 80Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Alexander, J. (1978). Formal and substantive voluntarism in the work of Talcott Parsons: A theoretical and ideological reinterpretation. American Sociological Review, 43, 177–98.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. M. & Drew, P. (1979). Order in Court: The Organisation of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Beach, W. (1993). Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ Okay usages. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 325–52.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
Curl, T. (2006). Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1257–80.Google Scholar
Donovan, J. L., Mills, N., Smith, M. et al. (2002). Improving design and conduct of randomised trials by embedding them in qualitative research: ProtecT (prostate testing for cancer and treatment) study. British Medical Journal, 325, 766–70.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. (1997). ‘Open’ class of repair initiators as responses to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 28, 69–101.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (2005). Conversation analysis. In Fitch, K. & Sanders, R., eds., Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 71–102.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (2013). Conversation analysis and social action. Journal of Foreign Languages, 37, 2–20.Google Scholar
Emerson, R. M. & Messinger, S. L. (1977). The micro-politics of trouble. Social Problems, 25, 121–34.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1967). On face work. In Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 5–46.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.Google Scholar
Heritage, J., Raymond, C. & Drew, P. (2019). Constructing apologies: Reflexive relationships between apologies and offences. Journal of Pragmatics, 141, 185–200.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Robinson, J. (2006). Accounting for the visit: Giving reasons for seeking medical care. In Heritage, J. & Maynard, D., eds., Communication in Medical Care: Interaction between Primary Care Physicians and Patients. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 48–85.Google Scholar
Irvine, J. (1974). Strategies of status manipulation in the Wolof greeting. In Bauman, R. & Sherzer, J., eds., Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 167–91.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1984). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 191–222.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. & Torreira, F. (2015). The timing and construction of preference: a quantitative study. Discourse Processes, 52, 255–89.Google Scholar
Lerner, G. (1996). Finding “face” in the preference structure of talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 303–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. (2012). Interrogative intimations: On a possible social economics of interrogatives. In de Ruiter, J. P., ed., Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, T. (1968/1937). The Structure of Social Action. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1980). Telling my side. “Limited access” as a “fishing” device. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 186–99.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–101.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. & Heritage, J. (2014). Preference. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Blackwell, pp. 210–28.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In Button, G. & Lee, J., eds., Talk and Social Organisation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 54–69.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1988). On an actual virtual servo-mechanism for guessing bad news: A single case conjecture. Social Problems, 35, 442–57.Google Scholar
Shaw, C., Connabeer, K., Drew, P. et al. (2020). Initiating end-of-life decisions with parents of infants receiving neonatal intensive care. Patient Education and Counseling, 103(7), 1351–7.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., Heritage, J., Barnes, R. K. et al. (2018). Treatment recommendations as actions. Health Communication 33(11), 1335–44.Google Scholar
- 3
- Cited by