Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T21:22:32.974Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Three orders in the organization of human action: On the interface between knowledge, power, and emotion in interaction and social relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2014

Melisa Stevanovic  and
Anssi Peräkylä
Melisa Stevanovic
Affiliation:
Finnish Centre of Excellence in Research on Intersubjectivity in Interaction, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 4, 00014 University of Helsinki, [email protected]
Anssi Peräkylä
Affiliation:
Finnish Centre of Excellence in Research on Intersubjectivity in Interaction, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 4, 00014 University of Helsinki, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

All social life is based on people's ability to recognize what others are doing. Recently, the mechanisms underlying this human ability have become the focus of a growing multidisciplinary interest. This article contributes to this line of research by considering how people's orientations to who they are to each other are built-in in the organization action. We outline a unifying theoretical framework in which the basic facets of human social relations are seen as being anchored in three orders—epistemic order, deontic order, and emotional order—each of which, we argue, also pertains to action recognition. This framework allows us to account for common ambiguities in action recognition and to describe relationship negotiations involving a complex interface between knowledge, power, and emotion. (Action recognition, social relations, conversation analysis, status, stance, epistemic rights, deontic rights, emotion)*

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 185 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Abrahams, Roger D. (1962). Playing the dozens. Journal of American Folklore 75:209–20.Google Scholar
Antaki, Charles (2012). Affiliative and disaffiliative candidate understandings. Discourse Studies 14:531–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antaki, Charles, & Kent, Alexandra (2012). Telling people what to do (and, sometimes, why): Contingency, entitlement and explanation in staff requests to adults with intellectual impairments. Journal of Pragmatics 44:876–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, John Maxwell, & Drew, Paul (1979). Order in court: The organisation of verbal interaction in judicial settings. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, John L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Becchio, Cristina; Cavallo, Andrea; Begliomini, Chiara; Sartori, Luisa; Feltrin, Giampietro; & Castiello, Umberto (2012). Social grasping: From mirroring to mentalizing. Neuroimage 61:240–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bühler, Karl (1934/2011). Theory of language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cekaite, Asta (2012). Affective stances in teacher-novice student interactions: Language, embodiment, and willingness to learn in a Swedish primary classroom. Language in Society 41:641–70.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. (1979). Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Psychology 11:430–77.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (2012). Exploring affiliation in the reception of conversational complaint stories. In Peräkylä & Sorjonen, 113–46.Google Scholar
Curl, Traci S. (2006). Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics 38:1257–80.Google Scholar
Curl, Traci S., & Drew, Paul (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41:129–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul (1987). Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics 25:219–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul (2012). What drives sequences? Research on Language and Social Interaction 45:61–68.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, & Walker, Traci (2009). Going too far: Complaining, escalating and disaffiliation. Journal of Pragmatics 41:2400–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Derek (1999). Emotion discourse. Culture & Psychology 5:271–91.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Ann R. (1986). Teasing: Verbal play in two Mexican homes. In Schieffelin, Bambi B. & Ochs, Eleanor (eds.), Language socialization across cultures: Studies in the social and cultural foundations of language, 182–98. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellsworth, Phoebe C., & Scherer, Klaus R. (2003). Appraisal process in emotion. In Davidson, Richard J., Scherer, Klaus R., & Goldsmith, H. Hill (eds.), Handbook of affective sciences, 572–95. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nicholas (2011). Sources of asymmetry in human interaction: Enchrony, status, knowledge and agency. In Stivers, Tanya, Mondada, Lorenza, & Steensig, Jacob (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, 285–312. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, Susan (1976). Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society 5:25–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy (2005). Context as other minds: The pragmatics of sociality, cognition and communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving (1983). The interaction order. American Sociological Review 48:1–17.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles (1979). The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In Psathas, George (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, 97–121. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles (2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse & Society 18:53–73.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness (2007). Occasioned knowledge exploration in family interaction. Discourse & Society 18:93–110.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness; Cekaite;, Asta & Goodwin, Charles (2012). Emotion as stance. In Peräkylä & Sorjonen, 16–41.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness, & Goodwin, Charles (2000). Emotion within situated activity. In Budvig, Nancy, Uzgiris, Ina C., & Wertsch, Jim (eds.), Communication: An arena of development, 33–54. Stamford, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
Greatbatch, David (1986). Aspects of topical organization in news interviews: The use of agenda shifting procedures by interviewees. Media, Culture & Society 8:441–55.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heinemann, Trine (2006). “Will you or can't you?”: Displaying entitlement in interrogative requests. Journal of Pragmatics 38:1081–104.Google Scholar
Heller, Monica (ed.) (1988). Codeswitching: Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (2005). Revisiting authority in physician-patient interaction. In Duchan, Judith F. & Kovarsky, Dan (eds.), Diagnosis as cultural practice, 83–102. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John (2011). Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. In Mondada, Stivers, & Steensig, 159–83.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45:1–29.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (2012b). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45:30–52.Google Scholar
Heritage, John, & Raymond, Geoffrey (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68:15–38.Google Scholar
Hochschild, Arlie (1979). Emotion work, feeling rules, and social structure. American Journal of Sociology 39:551–75.Google Scholar
Hochschild, Arlie (1983). The managed heart. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Houtkoop, Hanneke (1990). Accounting for proposals. Journal of Pragmatics 14:111–24.Google Scholar
Jaffe, Alexandra (2009). Introduction: The sociolinguistics of stance. In Jaffe, Alexandra (ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives, 3–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman (1960). Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok, Thomas A. (ed.), Style in language, 350–77. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keltner, Dacher; Capps, Lisa; Kring, Ann M.; Young, Randall C.; & Heerey, Erin A. (2001). Just teasing: A conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin 127:229–48.Google Scholar
Kent, Alexandra (2012). Compliance, resistance and incipient compliance when responding to directives. Discourse Studies 14(6):711–30.Google Scholar
Kovarsky, Dana; Curran;, Maura & Nichols, Nicole Zobel (2009). Laughter and communicative engagement in interaction. Seminars in Speech and Language 30:27–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kreuz, Roger J.; Kassler, Max A.; Coppenrath, Lori; & Allen, Bonnie McLain (1999). Tag questions and common ground effects in the perception of verbal irony. Journal of Pragmatics 31:1685–1700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William (1972). Rules for ritual insults. In Sudnow, David (ed.), Studies in social interaction, 297–353. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Langlotz, Andreas, & Locher, Miriam A. (2012). Ways of communicating emotional stance in online disagreements. Journal of Pragmatics 44:1591–1606.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. (2012). Action formation and ascription. In Stivers, Tanya & Sidnell, Jack (eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis, 103–30. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lindström, Anna (2005). Language as social action: A study of how senior citizens request assistance with practical tasks in the Swedish home help service. In Hakulinen, Auli & Selting, Margret (eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation, 209–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Macbeth, Douglas (1991). Teacher authority as practical action. Linguistics and Education 3:281–313.Google Scholar
Marsch, Abigail A.; Kozak, Megan N.; Wegner, Daniel M.; Reid, Marguerite E.; Yu, Henry H.; & Blair, R. J. R. (2010). The neural substrates of action identification. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 5:392–403.Google Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W., & Freese, Jeremy (2012). Good news, bad news, and affect: Practical and temporal “emotion work” in everyday life. In Peräkylä & Sorjonen, 92–112.Google Scholar
McKinlay, Andy, & McVittie, Chris (2006). Using topic control to avoid the gainsaying of troublesome evaluations. Discourse Studies 8:797–815.Google Scholar
Ogden, Richard (2010). Prosodic constructions in making complaints. In Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar, Reber, Elisabeth, & Selting, Margret (eds.), Prosody in interaction, 81–104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, Talcott (1951). The social system. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Pavey, Emma (2010). The structure of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peräkylä, Anssi (1998). Authority and accountability: The delivery of diagnosis in primary health care. Social Psychology Quarterly 61:301–20.Google Scholar
Peräkylä (2012). Epilogue. In Peräkylä & Sorjonen, 274–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peräkylä, & Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (eds.) (2012). Emotion in interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita M. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies 9:219–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Linda L. (2007). Contradictions in the metatalk about feelings in corporation: After Mr. Sam. In Cooren, François (ed.), Interacting and organizing: Analyses of a management meeting, 95–111. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey, & Heritage, John (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society 35:677–705.Google Scholar
Rizzolatti, Giacomo, & Craighero, Laila (2004). The mirror neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience 27:169–92.Google Scholar
Ruusuvuori, Johanna (2000). Control in the medical consultation: Practices of giving and receiving the reason for the visit in primary health care. Tampere: Department of Sociology and Social Psychology, University of Tampere dissertation.Google Scholar
Ruusuvuori, Johanna, & Peräkylä, Anssi (2009). Facial and verbal expression in assessing stories and topics. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43:377–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey (1972a). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In Sudnow, David (ed.), Studies in social interaction, 31–74. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey (1972b). On the analyzability of stories by children. In Gumperz, John J. & Hymes, Dell H. (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication, 325–45. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey (1992). Lectures on conversation, vol. 1. Ed. by Jefferson, Gail. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2001). Getting serious: Joke → serious “no.” Journal of Pragmatics 33:1947–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2007a). A tutorial on membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics 39:462–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2007b). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., & Sacks, Harvey (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica 8:289–327.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah (1994). Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5:1–23.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret (1994). Emphatic speech style—with special focus on the prosodic signaling of heightened emotive involvement in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 22:375–408.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret (2010). Affectivity in conversational storytelling: An analysis of displays of anger or indignation in complaint stories. Pragmatics 20:229–77.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack (2012). Declaratives, questioning, defeasibility. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45:53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, & Peräkylä, Anssi (2012). Introduction. In Peräkylä & Sorjonen, 3–15.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, & Wilson, Deirdre (1986). Relevance, communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spunt, Robert P.; Satpute;, Ajay B. & Lieberman, Matthew D. (2011). Identifying the what, why, and how of an observed action: An fMRI study of mentalizing and mechanizing during action observation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 23:63–74.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa (2011). Participants' deontic rights and action formation: The case of declarative requests for action. Interaction and Linguistic Structures (InLiSt) 52.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa (2012a). Establishing joint decisions in a dyad. Discourse Studies 14:1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa (2012b). Prosodic salience and the emergence of new decisions: On the prosody of approval in Finnish workplace interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 44:843–62.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa, & Peräkylä, Anssi (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45:297–321.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41:31–57.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, & Hayashi, Makoto (2010). Transformative answers: One way to resist a question's constraints. Language in Society 39:1–25.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya; Mondada;, Lorenza & Steensig, Jakob (eds.) (2011). The morality of knowledge in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, & Rossano, Federico (2010). Mobilising response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43:3–31.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: Morrow.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tykkyläinen, Tuula, & Laakso, Minna (2009). Five-year-old girls negotiating pretend play: Proposals with the Finnish particle jooko. Journal of Pragmatics 42:242–56.Google Scholar
van Berkum, Jos J. A.; van den Brink, Danielle; Tesink, Cathelijne M. J. Y.; Kos, Miriam; & Hagoort, Peter (2008). The neural integration of speaker and message. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20:580–91.Google Scholar
van Overwalle, Frank, & Baetens, Kris (2009). Understanding others' actions and goals by mirror and mentalizing systems: A meta-analysis. Neuroimage 48:564–84.Google Scholar
Wardhaugh, Ronald (2010). An introduction to sociolinguistics. 6th edn.West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wilce, James M. (2009). Language and emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar