1887
Approaches to grammar for interactional linguistics
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

This study offers a multimodal analysis of turns in everyday English interactions that are used for making compliments, i.e. for positively evaluating the appearance, personal qualities or actions of (a) co-present participant(s) in the present situation. We first identify the most frequent linguistic formats recurrently occurring in compliments in our data. We then focus on the sequential interactional analysis of compliment sequences, i.e. the production of the compliment and the response it receives. While a range of bodily-visual displays and prosodic features can be identified as co-constructing compliment activity, we argue that gaze direction has a specific role in the production of both compliments and their responses. The data come from a database of approximately 8 hours of video–recorded casual face-to-face conversations in English. The study employs the methodology of conversation analysis, maintaining that social interaction in face-to-face conversations is a multimodal achievement, where participants’ use of language, embodied actions and material objects are variously combined to build coherent courses of action (Goodwin 2000). The aim of the study is to provide a description of how embodied actions enter into the design of social action formats for compliments.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.24.3.09kei
2015-09-01
2019-10-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bavelas, J.B. , L. Coates , and T. Johnson
    (2002) Listener responses as a collaborative process: The role of gaze. Journal of Communication52: 566-580. doi: 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2002.tb02562.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02562.x [Google Scholar]
  2. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    (2012) On affectivity and preference in responses to rejection. In E. Kärkkäinen , and J. Du Bois (eds.), Stance, Affect, and Intersubjectivity in Interaction: Sequential and Dialogic Perspectives. Special issue of Text & Talk32-4: 453-475.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth , and Sandra Thompson
    (2005) A linguistic practice for retracting overstatements: ‘Concessive repair’. In A. Hakulinen , and M. Selting (eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.257-288. doi: 10.1075/sidag.17.14cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17.14cou [Google Scholar]
  4. Du Bois, John , and Elise Kärkkäinen
    (2012) Taking a stance on emotion: Affect, sequence, and intersubjectivity in dialogic interaction. In E. Kärkkäinen , and J. Du Bois (eds.), Stance, Affect, and Intersubjectivity in Interaction: Sequential and Dialogic Perspectives. Special issue of Text & Talk32-4: 433-451.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Du Bois, John , Stephan Schuetze-Coburn , Susanna Cumming , and Danae Paolino
    (1993) An outline of discourse transcription. In J.A. Edwards , and M.D. Lampert (eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.45-87.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Fox, Barbara A
    (2000) Micro-syntax in conversation. Paper presented atInteractional Linguistics Conference, Spa, Belgium, September 2000.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (2007) Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies9.3: 299-318. doi: 10.1177/1461445607076201
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607076201 [Google Scholar]
  8. Golato, Andrea
    (2002) German compliment responses. Journal of Pragmatics34: 547-571. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00040‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00040-6 [Google Scholar]
  9. Goodwin, Charles
    (2000) Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics32: 1489-1522. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00096‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X [Google Scholar]
  10. Goodwin, Charles , and Marjorie Harness Goodwin
    (1987) Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPrA Papers in Pragmatics1.1: 1-54.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (1992) Assessment and the construction of context. In A. Duranti , and C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context. Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.147-190.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Haddington, Pentti
    (2006) The organization of gaze and assessments as resources for stance taking. Text &Talk26.3: 281-328. doi: 10.1515/TEXT.2006.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.012 [Google Scholar]
  13. Hayashi, Makoto
    (2003) Joint utterance construction in Japanese converstion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/sidag.12
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.12 [Google Scholar]
  14. Heritage, John
    (2002) Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In C. Ford , B.A. Fox , and S. Thompson (eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.196-224.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Heritage, John , and Geoffrey Raymond
    (2005) The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly68.1: 15-38. doi: 10.1177/019027250506800103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hutchby, Ian , and Robin Wooffitt
    (2008) Conversation Analysis, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Keisanen, Tiina
    (2012) “Uh-oh, we were going there”: Environmentally occasioned noticings of trouble in in-car interaction. Semiotica191.1/4: 199-224.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Keisanen, Tiina , and Elise Kärkkäinen
    (2014) Stance. In Klaus P. Schneider , and Anne Barron (eds.), Pragmatics of Discourse. Handbook of Pragmatics [HOPS]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.295-322.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kärkkäinen, Elise , and Tiina Keisanen
    (2012) Linguistic and embodied formats for making (concrete) offers. Discourse Studies14.5: 1-25. doi: 10.1177/1461445612454069
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612454069 [Google Scholar]
  20. Lindström, Anna , and Lorenza Mondada
    (2009) Assessments in social interaction: Introduction to the special issue. Research on Language and Social Interaction42.4: 299-308. doi: 10.1080/08351810903296457
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903296457 [Google Scholar]
  21. Local, John
    (2004) Getting back to prior talk: And-uh(m) as a back-connecting device. In E. Couper-Kuhlen , and C. Ford (eds.), Sound patterns in interaction: Cross-linguistic studies of phonetics and prosody for conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.377-400. doi: 10.1075/tsl.62.18loc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.62.18loc [Google Scholar]
  22. Manes, Joan , and Nessa Wolfson
    (1981) The compliment formula. In F. Coulmas (ed.), Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. The Hague: Mouton Publishers, pp.115-132.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Nevile, Maurice
    (2004) Beyond the black box. Talk-in-Interaction in the Airline Cockpit. Aldershot: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. McClave, Evelyn
    (2000) Linguistic functions of head movements in the context of speech. Journal of Pragmatics32: 855-878. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00079‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00079-X [Google Scholar]
  25. Mondada, Lorenza
    (2009) The embodied and negotiated production of assessments in instructed actions. Research on Language and Social Interaction42.4: 329-361. doi: 10.1080/08351810903296473
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903296473 [Google Scholar]
  26. Pomerantz, Anita
    (1978) Compliment responses. Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In J. Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York: Academic Press, pp.79-112. doi: 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑623550‑0.50010‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50010-0 [Google Scholar]
  27. (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In M. Atkinson , and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp57-101.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (1986) Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies9: 219-229. doi: 10.1007/BF00148128
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128 [Google Scholar]
  29. Rauniomaa Mirka, and Tiina Keisanen
    (2012) Two multimodal formats for responding to requests. Journal of Pragmatics44.6–7: 829-842. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.003 [Google Scholar]
  30. Rossano, Federico
    (2013) Gaze in conversation. In J. Sidnell , and T. Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.308-329.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Ruusuvuori Johanna, and Anssi Peräkylä
    (2009) Facial and verbal expressions in assessing stories and topics. Research on Language and Social Interaction42.4: 377-394. doi: 10.1080/08351810903296499
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903296499 [Google Scholar]
  32. Schegloff, Emanuel
    (1986) On some gestures’ relation to talk. In J.M. Atkinson , and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.266-296.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  34. Scheibman, Joanne
    (2001) Local patterns of subjectivity in person and verb type in American English conversation. In J. Bybee , and P. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.61-89. doi: 10.1075/tsl.45.04sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.04sch [Google Scholar]
  35. Schiffrin, Deborah
    (1987) Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  36. Shaw, Rebecca , and Celia Kitzinger
    (2012) Compliments on a home birth helpline. Research on Language and Social Interaction45.3: 213-244. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.699251
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699251 [Google Scholar]
  37. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
    (1989) Vuoronalkuiset konnektorit: Mutta . [Turn-initial connectors: But ]. In A. Hakulinen (ed.), Suomalaisen keskustelun keinoja I. Kieli 4. Helsinki: Finnish Department, University of Helsinki, pp.162-176.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Stivers, Tanya , and Frederico Rossano
    (2010) Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction43.1: 3-31. doi: 10.1080/08351810903471258
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258 [Google Scholar]
  39. Streeck, Jürgen , Charles Goodwin , and Curtis LeBaron
    (2011) Embodied interaction in the material world. An introduction. In J. Streeck , C. Goodwin , and C. LeBaron (eds.), Embodied Interaction. Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.1-26.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Wagner, Johannes , and Rod Gardner
    (2004) Introduction. In R. Gardner , and J. Wagner (eds.), Second Language Conversations. London: Continuum, pp.1-17.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.24.3.09kei
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Compliments , Conversation analysis , Embodied actions , Evaluation , Language in use and Social action format
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