Volume 11, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-7031
  • E-ISSN: 1877-8798
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



In Mandarin conversation, utterances about future actions with severe consequences are observed to correlate with bigger promises, marked by devices indicating greater illocutionary force, as compared with those about actions with less serious consequences. Applying the principle of proportionality proposed by Goffman (1971), I argue that participants’ design of promise is proportional to the severity of the action consequences, which is evaluated by the participants on a moment-by-moment basis. The ad hoc construction of promises shows that promising is a dynamic process, rather than a one-time action. The proportionality principle may also account for the differences between promises in institutional discourse and ordinary conversation.

This work is currently available as a sample.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Attardo, Salvatore
    2001 “umor and irony in interaction: from mode adoption to failure of detection.” InSay not to say: New perspectives on miscommunicatio, ed. byLuigi Anolli, Rita. Ciceri, and Giuseppe. Riva, 166–185. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Austin, John Langshaw
    1962How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Brandom, Robert
    1994Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  5. Canavan, Alexandra, and George Zipperlen
    1996 CALLFRIEND Mandarin Chinese-Mainland Dialect LDC96S55. Web Download. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
  6. 1996 CALLHOME Mandarin Chinese Speech LDC96S34. Web Download. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
  7. Chao, Yuen Ren
    1968A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Clark, Herbert H.
    1996 “Joint commitment.” InUsing Language, 289–317. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539.011
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539.011 [Google Scholar]
  9. Clayman, Steven
    1992 “Footing in the achievement of neutrality: The case of news interview discourse.” InTalk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, ed. byPaul Drew, 163–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Clayman, Steven, and John Heritage
    2002The news interview: Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613623
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613623 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2014 “Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests.” InRequesting in social interaction, ed. byElizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Paul Drew, 55–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    2009 “A sequential approach to affect: The case of ‘disappointment.’” InTalk in interaction – Comparative dimensions, ed. byMarkku Haakana, Minna Laakso, and Jan Lindström, 94–123. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Selting, Margret
    2017Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139507318
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139507318 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dong, Xiufang
    2010 “汉语中表示承诺的言语施为动词. [Performative Verbs that Can Express Commitment in Chinese]” 汉语学习Hanyu Xuexi (2): 23–30.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Drew, Paul
    1987 Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics. 25 (1): 219–253. 10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.219
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.219 [Google Scholar]
  16. Enfield, Nick
    2011 “Sources of asymmetry in human interaction: Enchrony, status, knowledge, and agency.” InThe morality of knowledge in conversation, ed. byStivers Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 285–312. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.013 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fang, Mei
    2017 “负面评价表达的规约化. [On conventionalization of negative assessment expressions]” 中国语文Zhongguo Yuwen (2): 131–147.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Fish, Karyn, Kathrin Rothermich, and Marc D. Pell
    2017 “The sound of (in) sincerity.” Journal of Pragmatics121: 147–161. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.008 [Google Scholar]
  19. Goffman, Erving
    1971Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Harper and Row.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 1978The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Harmondsworth.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 1979 “Footing.” Semiotica25 (1–2): 1–30. 10.1515/semi.1979.25.1‑2.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1979.25.1-2.1 [Google Scholar]
  22. Goodwin, Charles
    1979 “The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation.” InEveryday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, ed. byGeorge Psathas, 97–121. New York: Irvington Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Haugh, Michael
    2017 “Teasing.” Inthe Routledge handbook of language and humor, ed. bySalvatore Attardo, 204–218. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315731162‑15
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315731162-15 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2013 “Speaker meaning and accountability in interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics48 (1): 41–56. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.009 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hayashi, Makoto
    2013 “Turn allocation and turn sharing.” InThe handbook of conversation analysis, ed. bySidnell Jack, and Tanya Stivers, 167–190, ‎Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hellbernd, Nele, and Daniela Sammler
    2016 “Prosody conveys speaker’s intentions: Acoustic cues for speech act perception.” Journal of Memory and Language88: 70–86. 10.1016/j.jml.2016.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2016.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Heritage, John
    2003 “Designing questions and setting agendas in the news interview.” InStudies in language and social interaction: In honor of Robert Hopper, ed. byPhilip Glenn, Curtis Lebaron, and Jennifer Mandelbaum, 57–90. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2007 “Intersubjectivity and progressivity in person (and place) reference.” InPerson reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives, ed. byStivers Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 255–280. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Heritage, John, and Raymond C. Wesley
    2016 “Are explicit apologies proportional to the offenses they address?” Discourse Processes53 (1–2): 5–25. 10.1080/0163853X.2015.1056695
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1056695 [Google Scholar]
  30. Heritage, John, Raymond C. Wesley, and Drew, Paul
    2019 “Constructing apologies: Reflexive relationships between apologies and offenses.” Journal of Pragmatics142: 185–200. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  31. Jakobson, Roman
    1957 “Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb.” InSelected WritingsII, 130–47. The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Kibble, Rodger
    2006 “Speech acts, commitment and multi-agent communication.” Computational & mathematical organization theory12 (2–3): 127–145. 10.1007/s10588‑006‑9540‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-006-9540-z [Google Scholar]
  33. Kissine, Mikhail
    2008 “From predictions to promises: How to derive deontic commitment.” Pragmatics & Cognition16 (3): 471–491. 10.1075/pc.16.3.03kis
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.16.3.03kis [Google Scholar]
  34. Kotthoff, Helga
    2003 “Responding to irony in different contexts: On cognition in conversation.” Journal of pragmatics, 35 (9): 1387–1411. doi:  10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00182‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00182-0 [Google Scholar]
  35. Labov, William
    1984 “Intensity.” InMeaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications, ed. byDeborah Schiffrin, 43–70. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Lee, P. L. P., Hai Hua Pan, and Lei Zhang
    2013 “Chinese adverbial Quan as a dual-function operator: A domain restrictor and a universal quantifier.” Linguistics and the Human Sciences8 (2): 169–205. 10.1558/lhs.v8i2.169
    https://doi.org/10.1558/lhs.v8i2.169 [Google Scholar]
  37. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1983 “Pragmatics.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
  38. Li, Charles, and Sandra Thompson
    1981 “A functional reference grammar of Mandarin Chinese.” Berkeley: University of California Press.
  39. Local, John, and Gareth Walker
    2004 “Abrupt-joins as a resource for the production of multi-unit, multi-action turns.” Journal of Pragmatics36 (8): 1375–1403. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.04.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.04.006 [Google Scholar]
  40. Ogden, Richard
    2012 “Making Sense of Outliers.” Phonetica69: 48–67. 10.1159/000343197
    https://doi.org/10.1159/000343197 [Google Scholar]
  41. Parsons, Talcott
    1991 The social system. New York: Free Press.
  42. Pell, Marc D., Silke Paulmann, Chinar Dara, Areej Alasseri, and Sonja A. Kotz
    2009 “Factors in the recognition of vocally expressed emotions: A comparison of four languages.” Journal of Phonetics37 (4): 417–435. 10.1016/j.wocn.2009.07.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2009.07.005 [Google Scholar]
  43. Pomerantz, Anita
    1986 “Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims.” Human studies9 (2–3): 219–229. 10.1007/BF00148128
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128 [Google Scholar]
  44. Reber, Elisabeth
    2012Affectivity in Interaction: Sound objects in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/pbns.215
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.215 [Google Scholar]
  45. Searle, John R.
    1969Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  46. 1975 “Indirect speech acts.” InSpeech acts, 59–82. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004368811_004
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_004 [Google Scholar]
  47. 1989 “How performatives work.” Linguistics and philosophy12(5): 535–558. 10.1007/BF00627773
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00627773 [Google Scholar]
  48. Selting, Margret
    1996 “Prosody as an activity-type distinctive cue in conversation: The case of so-called ‘astonished’.” InProsody in conversation: Interactional studies, ed. byElizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Margret Selting, 231–270. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862.008 [Google Scholar]
  49. Shardakova, Maria
    2017 “Politeness, Teasing, and Humor”. Inthe Routledge Handbook of Language and Humor, ed. bySalvatore Attardo, 219–233. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315731162‑16
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315731162-16 [Google Scholar]
  50. Schegloff, Emanuel, Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks
    1974 “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.” Language50 (4): 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  51. Stivers, Tanya
    2005 “Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position”. Research on language and social interaction38 (2): 131–158. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1 [Google Scholar]
  52. Thompson, Sandra A., and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2005 “The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction.” Discourse studies7 (4–5): 481–505. 10.1177/1461445605054403
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054403 [Google Scholar]
  53. Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2015Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139381154
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139381154 [Google Scholar]
  54. Tomioka, Satoshi, and Yaping Tsai
    2005 “Domain restrictions for distributive quantification in Mandarin Chinese.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics14 (2): 89–120. 10.1007/s10831‑004‑6303‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-004-6303-z [Google Scholar]
  55. Turk, Monica J.
    2006 “Projection in Mandarin Chinese conversation: Grammar and social interaction in question-answer sequences.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Santa Barbara.
  56. Walker, Gareth
    2010 “The phonetic constitution of a turn-holding practice.” Prosody in interaction23: 51. 10.1075/sidag.23.08wal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.23.08wal [Google Scholar]
  57. Xie, Xinyang
    2018 “汉语自然会话中的疑问式回应及其互动功能. [The interrogative form response to questions and its interactional function in Chinese daily conversation].” 语言教学与研究. Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies194(6): 83-92.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Xinhuanet
    2018 “吉林长春: ‘电视问政’有镜头 作风建设不停休. [Jilin Changchun: non-stop effort to rectify officials’ style of work through the lens of ‘Questioning Officials on TV’]”. Retrieved fromwww.xinhuanet.com/politics/2018-01/25/c_1122313561.htm
  59. Wang, Yu-Fang, Pi-Hua Tsai, and Ya-Ting Yang
    2010 “Objectivity, subjectivity and intersubjectivity: Evidence from qishi (‘actually’) and shishishang (‘in fact’) in spoken Chinese.” Journal of Pragmatics42 (3): 705–727. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.07.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.07.011 [Google Scholar]
  60. Yu, Guodong, and Yaxin Wu
    2018 “Inviting in Mandarin: Anticipating the likelihood of the success of an invitation.” Journal of Pragmatics125: 130–148. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.013 [Google Scholar]
  61. Yue, Yao
    2016 “从互动交际的视角看让步类同语式评价立场的表达. [Stance-taking of the concessive tautology in Mandarin conversation].” 中国语文. Zhongguo Yuwen (Chinese Language) 370(1): 58–69.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error