Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T13:53:46.846Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

29 - Conversation Analysis and Sociopragmatics

from Part III - Approaches and Methods in Sociopragmatics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2021

Michael Haugh
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Dániel Z. Kádár
Affiliation:
Hungarian Research Institute for Linguistics, and Dalian University of Foreign Languages
Marina Terkourafi
Affiliation:
Leiden University
Get access

Summary

In this chapter, we consider what methods and research in conversation analysis (CA), which examines the systematic accomplishment of action in its natural ecological contexts, can bring to sociopragmatics. While CA shares some of its methods with some other approaches in pragmatics – including its data-driven focus – we begin by first focusing on two aspects of the CA method that make it distinct from other approaches to language use: transcription and collections. We then go on to illustrate through two case studies how CA methods and research can help us leverage open areas of ongoing interest in sociopragmatics. The first case study focuses on (im)politeness and speech acts, while the second focuses on inference, identity and relationships. The chapter concludes by reflecting on the intersection between CA and sociopragmatics and possible directions for future research.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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

Arundale, R. B. (2010). Constituting face in conversation: Face, facework, and interactional achievement. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 20782105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2020). Communicating and Relating: Constituting Face in Everyday Interacting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. ([1962] 1975). How to Do Things with Words. 2nd ed. Edited by Urmson, J. O. and Sbisà, M.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bayraktaroğlu, A. and Sifianou, M. (2012). The iron fist in a velvet glove: How politeness can contribute to impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research, 8(2), 143–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. and Heritage, J. (2014). Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Drew, P., eds., Requesting in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 5586.Google Scholar
Clift, R. (2001). Meaning in interaction: The case of actually. Language, 77(2), 245–91.Google Scholar
Clift, R. (2005). Discovering order. Lingua, 115, 1641–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clift, R. (2012). Identifying action: Laughter in non-humorous reported speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1303–12.Google Scholar
Clift, R. (2014). Conversation analysis. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A., eds., Pragmatics of Discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 97124.Google Scholar
Clift, R. (2016). Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clift, R. and Raymond, C. (2018). Actions in practice: On details in collections. Discourse Studies, 20(1), 90119.Google Scholar
Cook, H. M. (2006). Japanese politeness as an interactional achievement: Academic consultation sessions in Japanese universities. Multilingua, 25, 269–91.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Selting, M. (2018). Interactional Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Curl, T. (2006). Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1257–80.Google Scholar
Curl, T. and Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41, 129–53.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (2018a). The interface between pragmatics and conversation analysis. In Ilie, C. and Norrick, N., eds., Pragmatics and Its Interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 5983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. (2018b). Inferences and indirectness in interaction. Open Linguistics, 4, 241–59.Google Scholar
Drew, P. and Holt, E. (1998). Figures of speech: Figurative expressions and the management of topic transition in conversation. Language in Society, 27, 495522.Google Scholar
Drew, P., Walker, T. and Ogden, R. (2013). Self-repair and action construction. In Hayashi, M., Raymond, G. and Sidnell, J., eds., Conversational Repair and Human Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 7194.Google Scholar
Evans, N. and Levinson, S. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 429–92.Google Scholar
Ferenčik, M. (2007). Exercising politeness: Membership categorisation in a radio phone-in programme. Pragmatics, 17(3), 351–70.Google Scholar
Flint, N., Haugh, M. and Merrison, A. J. (2019). Modulating troubles affiliating in initial interactions. Pragmatics, 29(3), 384409.Google Scholar
Floyd, S., Rossi, G. and Enfield, N. J. (2020). Getting Others to Do Things: A Pragmatic Typology of Recruitments. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. and Sacks, H. (1970). On formal structures of practical actions. In McKinney, J. C. and Tiraykian, E. A., eds., Theoretical Sociology. New York: Appleton Century Crofts, pp. 338–66.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2013). Im/politeness, social practice and the participation order. Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 5272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, M. (2015). Im/politeness Implicatures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2017). Prompting offers of assistance in interaction. Pragmatics and Society, 8, 183207.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (forthcoming). Action ascription, accountability and inference. In Deppermann, A. and Haugh, M., eds., Action Ascription. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hepburn, A. and Bolden, G. (2017). Transcribing for Social Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). A change of state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 299345.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry. Language in Society, 27, 291334.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: ndexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 1538.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. (2008). Participants’ orientations to interruptions, rudeness and other impolite acts in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Politeness Research, 4(2), 221–41.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1979). A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance-declination. In Psathas, G., ed., Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington, pp. 7995.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1984). On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 346–69.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1985). An exercise in the transcription and analysis of laughter. In van Dijk, T., ed., Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. 3, Discourse and Dialogue. London: Academic Press, pp. 2534.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2002). Is ‘no’ an acknowledgement token? Comparing American and British uses of (+)/(−) tokens. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1345–83.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004a). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner, G., ed., Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1323.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004b). A note on laughter in ‘male–female’ interaction. Discourse Studies, 6, 117–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, G., Sacks, H. and Schegloff, E. (1987). Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy. In Button, G. and Lee, J. R. E., eds., Talk and Social Organisation. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 152205.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. (2017). Using conversation analysis in the lab. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50, 111.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K., Brown, P., Dingemanse, M., Floyd, S., Gipper, S., Hayano, K., Hoey, E., Hoymann, G., Manrique, G., Rossi, G. and Levinson, S. C. (2020). Sequence organization: A universal infrastructure for social action. Journal of Pragmatics, 168, 119–38.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. and Drew, P. (2014). The putative preference for offers over requests. In Drew, P. and Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 87113.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. and Drew, P. (2016). Recruitments: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49, 119.Google Scholar
Kitzinger, C. (2005). Speaking as a heterosexual: (How) does sexuality matter for talk-in-interaction? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(3), 221–65.Google Scholar
Kitzinger, C. and Mandelbaum, J. (2013) Word selection and social identities in talk-in-interaction. Communication Monographs, 80(2), 176–98.Google Scholar
Krzeszowski, T. (1990). Contrasting Languages: The Scope of Contrastive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Merrison, A. J. (2011). Doing aphasia – ‘are you with me?’: Analysing face-work around issues of (non-)competence. In LPRG, ed., Discursive Approaches to Politeness. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 221–44.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2019). Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 4762.Google Scholar
Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2005). Managing adversarial questioning in broadcast interviews. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 193217.Google Scholar
Pillet-Shore, D. (in press). When to make the sensory social: Registering in face-to-face openings. Symbolic Interaction.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57101.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (2017). Inferring the purpose of a prior query and responding accordingly. In Raymond, G., Lerner, G. and Heritage, J., eds., Enabling Human Conduct. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 6177.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. and Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 210–28.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. and Mandelbaum, J. (2005). Conversation analytic approaches to the relevance and uses of relationship categories in interaction. In Fitch, K. and Sanders, R., eds., Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 149–71.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68, 939–67.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. and Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35, 677705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. (2016). Accountability in social interaction. In Robinson, J., ed., Accountability in Social Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 144.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: The Free Press, pp. 3175.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1984). Notes on methodology. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 2127.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992a). Lectures on Conversation. Vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992b). Lectures on Conversation. Vol. 2. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. and Schegloff, E. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In Psathas, G., ed., Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington, pp. 1521.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075–95.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26, 99128.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1996). Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology, 102, 161216.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1997). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-inititated repair. Discourse Processes, 23, 499545.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (2000). On granularity. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 715–20.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (2010). Commentary on Stivers and Rossano: ‘Mobilising response’. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43, 3848.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (2017). Conversation analysis. In Huang, Y., ed., The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 435–49.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organisation of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361–82.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. and Lerner, G. (2009). Beginning to respond: Well-preface responses to wh-questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42, 91115.Google Scholar
Schenkein, J. (ed.). (1978). Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×