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
7 - Strategy Ascriptions in Public Mediation Talks
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
Action ascription is an emergent process of mutual displays of understanding. Usually, the kind of action that is ascribed to a prior turn by a next action remains implicit. Sometimes, however, actions are overtly ascribed, for example, when speakers expose the use of strategies. This happens particularly in conflictual interaction, such as public debates or mediation talks. In these interactional settings, one of the speakers’ goals is to discredit their opponents in front of other participants or an overhearing audience. This chapter investigates different types of overt strategy ascriptions in a public mediation: exposing the opponent’s use of rhetorical devices, exposing the opponent’s use of false premises, and exposing that an opponent is telling only a half-truth. This chapter shows how speakers use ascriptions of acting strategically as accusations to disclose their opponents’ intentions and ‘truths’ that the opponents allegedly conceal and that are detrimental to their position.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Action Ascription in Interaction , pp. 160 - 182Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Andone, C. (2013). Argumentation in Political Interviews: Analyzing and Evaluating Responses to Accusations of Inconsistency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. M. (1984). Our Masters’ Voices: The Language and Body Language of Politics. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burkhardt, A. (2003). Das Parlament und seine Sprache: Studien zu Theorie und Geschichte parlamentarischer Kommunikation. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S. E. (1992). Footing in the achievement of neutrality: The case of news-interview discourse. In Drew, P. & Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 163–98.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. E. (2013). Conversation analysis in the news interview. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 630–56.Google Scholar
Clark, H. & Schaefer, E. (1992). Dealing with overhearers. In Clark, H., ed., Arenas of Language Use. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 248–73.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–47.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2016). Impoliteness strategies. In Capone, A. & Mey, J. L., eds., Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society. Cham: Springer, pp. 421–45.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. [1997] (2005). Glaubwürdigkeit im Konflikt. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2012). How does “cognition” matter to the analysis of talk-in-interaction? Language Sciences, 34(6), 746–67.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. (2015). Gleiche Wörter – inkommensurable Bedeutungen: Zur interaktiven Entstehung von Undurchschaubarkeit in politischen Diskussionen am Beispiel von “Ökologie” in den Schlichtungsgesprächen zum Bahnprojekt “Stuttgart 21.” In Tuomarla, U., Härmä, J., Tiittula, L. et al., eds., Miscommunication and Verbal Violence: Du malentendu à la violence verbale: Misskommunikation und verbale Gewalt. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, pp. 25–41.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
Edwards, D. (2008). Intentionality and mens rea in police interrogations: The production of actions as crimes. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 177–99.Google Scholar
Gohl, C. & Günther, S. (1999). Grammatikalisierung von weil als Diskursmarker in der gesprochenen Sprache. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 18(1), 39–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greatbatch, D. (1992). On the management of disagreement between news interviewees. In Drew, P. & Heritage, J., eds., Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 268–301.Google Scholar
Günthner, S. (2000). Vorwurfsaktivitäten in der Alltagsinteraktion. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle 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
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (1990/1991). Intention, meaning and strategy: Observations on constraints on interaction analysis. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 24(1–4), 311–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, R. (2005). A cognitive agnostic in conversation analysis: When do strategies affect spoken interaction? In te Molder, H. & Potter, Jonathan, eds., Conversation and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 134–58.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. (1997). Building alignments in public debate: A case study from british TV. Text, 17, 161–79.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. (2006). Media Talk: Conversation Analysis and the Study of Broadcasting. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Imo, W. (2009). Konstruktion oder Funktion? Erkenntnisprozessmarker (change-of-state-token) im Deutschen. In Günther, S. & Bücker, J., eds., Grammatik im Gespräch. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 57–86.Google Scholar
Kampf, Z. (2013). Mediated performatives. In Östman, J.-O. & Verschueren, J., eds., Handbook of Pragmatics Online, Vol. 17. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
Komter, M. (2013). Conversation analysis in the courtroom. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley- Blackwell, pp. 612–29.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 103–30.Google Scholar
Luginbühl, M. (1999). Gewalt im Gespräch. Verbale Gewalt in politischen Fernsehdiskussionen am Beispiel der “Arena”. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Nothdurft, W. (1997). Konfliktstoff. Gesprächsanalyse der Konfliktbearbeitung in Schlichtungsgesprächen. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nothdurft, W. & Spranz-Fogasy, T. (2005). Gesprächsanalyse von Schlichtungs-Interaktion. Methodische Probleme und ihre Hintergründe. In Busch, D. & Schröder, H., eds., Perspektiven interkultureller Mediation. Bd. 2. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 341–62.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
Reineke, S. (2016). Wissenszuschreibungen in der Interaktion. Eine gesprächsanalytische Untersuchung impliziter und expliziter Formen der Zuschreibung von Wissen. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. D. (2016). Accountability in social interaction. In Robinson, J. D., ed., Accountability in Social Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–44.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
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D. et al. (2009). Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung, 10, 353–402.Google Scholar
Stivers, T., Mondada, L. & Steensig, J. (2011). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In Stivers, T., Mondada, L. & Steensig, J., eds., The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–24.Google Scholar
Walker, T., Drew, P. & Local, J. (2011). Responding indirectly. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(9), 2434–51.Google Scholar