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
6 - Intention Ascriptions as a Means to Coordinate Own Actions with Others’ Actions
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
While the role of intentions in the constitution of actions gives rise to complex and heavily controversial questions, it appears to be indisputable that action ascription in interaction mostly does without any overt ascription of intention. Yet, sometimes participants explicitly ascribe intentions to their interlocutors in order to make sense of their prior actions. The chapter examines intention ascriptions in response to a partner’s adjacent prior turn using the German modal verb construction willst du/wollen Sie (do you want). The analysis focuses on the aspect of the prior action the intention ascription addresses (action type, projected next action, motive etc.), the action the intention ascription performs itself, and the next action they make relevant from the prior speaker. It was found that intention ascriptions are used to clarify and intersubjectively ground the meaning of the prior turn, which seems otherwise underspecified, ambiguous or puzzling. Yet, they are also used to adumbrate criticism, e.g., that the prior turn projects a course of future actions which is considered to be inadequate, or to expose a concealed, problematic allegedly “real” meaning of the prior turn.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Action Ascription in Interaction , pp. 135 - 159Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Antaki, C. (2008). Formulations in psychotherapy. In Peräkylä, A., Antaki, C., Vehviläinen, S. & Leudar, I., eds., Conversation Analysis and Psychotherapy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 26–42.Google Scholar
Antaki, C. (2012). Affiliative and disaffiliative candidate understandings. Discourse Studies, 14(5), 531–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antaki, C., Barnes, R. & Leudar, I. (2005). Diagnostic formulations in psychotherapy. Discourse Studies, 7(6), 627–47.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2008). Against (Gricean) intentions at the heart of human interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 229–58.Google Scholar
Barnes, R. (2007). Formulations and the facilitation of common agreement in meetings talk. Text & Talk, 27(3), 273–96.Google Scholar
Brentano, F. (1874). Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Childs, C. (2012a). Directing and requesting: Two interactive uses of the mental state terms “want” and “need.” Text & Talk, 32(6), 727–49.Google Scholar
Childs, C. (2012b). “I’m not X, I just want Y”: Formulating “wants” in interaction. Discourse Studies, 14(2), 181–96.Google Scholar
Curl, T. (2006). Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1257–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2011). The study of formulations as a key to an Interactional Semantics. Human Studies, 34(2), 115–28.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2014). Handlungsverstehen und Intentionszuschreibung in der Interaktion I: Intentionsbekundungen mit wollen. In Bergmann, P., Birkner, K., Gilles, P., Spiekermann, H. & Streck, T., eds., Sprache im Gebrauch. Räumlich, zeitlich, interaktional. Festschrift für Peter Auer. Heidelberg: Winter, pp. 309–26.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. & Helmer, H. (2013). Zur Grammatik des Verstehens im Gespräch: Inferenzen anzeigen und Handlungskonsequenzen ziehen mit also und dann. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 32(1), 1–40.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619.Google Scholar
Drake, V. (2016). German questions and turn-final oder. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 17, 168–95.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (2003). Comparative analysis of talk-in-interaction in different institutional settings: A sketch. In Glenn, P., Lebaron, C. & Mandelbaum, J., eds., Studies in Language and Social Interaction: In Honor of Robert Hopper. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 293–308.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (2018). Inferences and indirectness in interaction. Open Linguistics, 4(1), pp. 241–59.Google Scholar
Duranti, A. (1993). Truth and intentionality: Towards an ethnographic critique. Cultural Anthropology, 8(2), 214–45.Google Scholar
Duranti, A. (2015). The Anthropology of Intentions: Language in a World of Others. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, D. (2008). Intentionality and mens rea in police interrogations: The production of actions as crimes. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 177–99.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. & Sidnell, J. (2017). On the concept of action in the study of interaction. Discourse Studies, 19, 515–35.Google Scholar
Fritz, G. (2000). Zur semantischen Entwicklungsgeschichte von “wollen.” Futurisches, Epistemisches und Verwandtes. In Richter, G., Riecke, J. & Schuster, B.-M., eds., Raum, Zeit, Medium – Sprache und ihre Determinanten. Festschrift für Hans Ramge zum 60. Geburtstag. Darmstadt: Hessische Historische Kommission, pp. 263–81.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1999). Intentions in the Experience of Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L., eds., Syntax and Semantics 3, Speech Acts. New York, NY: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.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: 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). Implicature and the inferential substrate. In Cap, P. & Dynel, M., eds., Implicitness: From Lexis to Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 281–304.Google Scholar
Haugh, M., ed. (2008b). Intention in pragmatics. Special issue of Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 99–260.Google Scholar
Helmer, H. & Zinken, J. (2019). Das heißt (“that means”) for formulations and du meinst (“you mean”) for repair? Interpretations of prior speakers’ turns in German. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(2), 159–76.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Watson, D. R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In Psathas, G., ed., Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. London: Irvington, pp. 123–62.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984b). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, M. J. & Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 299–345.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
Husserl, E. (1950). Husserliana 3: Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie. Erstes Buch: Allgemeine Einführung in die reine Phänomenologie, ed. by Biemel, W.. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Husserl, E. (1976). Husserliana 6: Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phänomenologie. Eine Einleitung in die phänomenologische Philosophie, ed. by Biemel, W.. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.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
König, K. (2020). Prosodie und epistemic stance: Konstruktionen mit finalem oder. In Imo, W. & Lanwer, J., eds., Prosodie und Konstruktionsgrammatik. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 167–99.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1988). Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy. Communication Monographs, 55(4), 360–73.Google Scholar
Potter, J. & Edwards, D. (2013). Conversation analysis and psychology. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 701–25.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. 321–53.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schütz, A. (1974 [1932]). Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Schütz, A. & Luckmann, T. (1979). Strukturen der Lebenswelt, Vol. 1. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1983). Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. & Enfield, N. J. (2014). The ontology of action, in interaction. In Enfield, N. J., Kockelman, P. & Sidnell, J., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 423–46.Google Scholar
Weiste, E. & Peräkylä, A. (2013). A comparative conversation analytic study of formulations in Psychoanalysis and Cognitive Psychotherapy. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(4), 299–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1950). Philosophische Untersuchungen. In Wittgenstein, L., ed., Werkausgabe, Vol. I. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 225–580.Google Scholar
- 3
- Cited by