1887
Volume 8, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

One of the ways in which we can get someone to do something for us is through hinting. However, studies that have attempted to systematically examine requestive hints have faced difficulties in identifying hints as they are designed, by definition, to be ambiguous with respect to the intentions of that speaker. An alternative to this kind of circularity is to shift the analytical lens away from putative speaker intentions as the starting point of analysis. In this paper it is suggested that a properly pragmatic account of prompted offers requires systematic analysis of the situational conditions which afford the participants’ understanding of them prompted, along with an appreciation of the three-part sequential architecture that is immanent to prompting offer sequences. It is concluded that pragmatic act theory has an important contribution to make to ongoing efforts to better understand fundamental processes of social action formation and ascription.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.8.2.02hau
2017-07-31
2019-11-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, Karin
    1996Conversational Routines in English. Convention and Creativity. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Arundale, Robert
    1999 “An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory.” Pragmatics9 (1): 119–154. doi: 10.1075/prag.9.1.07aru
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.9.1.07aru [Google Scholar]
  3. 2010 “Constituting face in conversation: face, facework and interactional achievement.” Journal of Pragmatics42 (8): 2078–2105. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.021 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bertuccelli Papi, Marcella
    1999 “Implicitness to whom?” InPragmatics in 1998. Selected Papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference, Vol.2, edited by Jef Verschueren , 57–72. Antwerp, Belgium: International Pragmatics Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
    1987 “Indirectness and politeness in requests: same or different?” Journal of Pragmatics11: 131–146. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(87)90192‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90192-5 [Google Scholar]
  6. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana , and Elite Olshtain
    1984 “Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP).” Applied Linguistics5 (3): 196–213. doi: 10.1093/applin/5.3.196
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.3.196 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bolden, Galina B. , Jenny Mandelbaum , and Sue Wilkinson
    2012 “Pursuing a response by repairing an indexical reference.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45 (2): 137–155. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.673380
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.673380 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown, Penelope , and Stephen Levinson
    1987Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Capone, Alessandro
    2005 “Pragmemes (a study with reference to English and Italian).” Journal of Pragmatics37 (9): 1355–1371. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.013 [Google Scholar]
  10. Clayman, Steven , and John Heritage
    2014 “Benefactors and beneficiaries: benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests.” InRequesting in Social Interaction, edited by Paul Drew and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , 51–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Clift, Rebecca
    2001 Meaning in interaction: the case of actually . Language77 (2): 245–291. doi: 10.1353/lan.2001.0074
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2001.0074 [Google Scholar]
  12. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    2014 “What does grammar tell us about action?” Pragmatics24 (3): 623–647. doi: 10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou [Google Scholar]
  13. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth , and Marja Etelämäki
    2015 “Nominated actions and their targeted agents in Finnish conversational directives.” Journal of Pragmatics78: 7–24. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.010 [Google Scholar]
  14. Culpeper, Jonathan , and Michael Haugh
    2014Pragmatics and the English Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑137‑39391‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-39391-3 [Google Scholar]
  15. Curl, Traci S.
    2006 “Offers of assistance: constraints on syntactic design.” Journal of Pragmatics38 (8): 1257–1280. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  16. Curl, Traci S. , and Paul Drew
    2008 Contingency and action: a comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction41 (2): 129–153. doi: 10.1080/08351810802028613
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802028613 [Google Scholar]
  17. Downing, Arthur
    2008 “Requesting in Library Reference Service Interactions.” PhD diss., Rutgers State University of New Jersey.
  18. Drew, Paul
    1984 “Speakers’ reportings in invitation sequences.” InStructures of Social Action, edited by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage , 102–128. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 2011 “Reflections on the micro-politics of social action, in interaction.” Paper presented atthe 12th International Pragmatics Association Conference, Manchester.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Drew, Paul , and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2014 “Requesting – from speech act to recruitment.” InRequesting in Social Interaction, edited by Paul Drew and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , 1–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Drew, Paul , Traci Walker , and Richard Ogden
    2013 “Self-repair and action construction.” InConversational Repair and Human Understanding, edited by Makoto Hayashi , Geoffrey Raymond and Jack Sidnell , 71–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Enfield, Nicholas J.
    2014 “Human agency and the infrastructure for requests.” InRequesting in Social Interaction, edited by Paul Drew and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , 35–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Fox, Barbara A.
    2007 “Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration.” Discourse Studies9 (3): 299–318. doi: 10.1177/1461445607076201
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607076201 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2015 “On the notion of pre-request.” Discourse Studies17 (1): 41–63. doi: 10.1177/1461445614557762
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445614557762 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gill, Virginia Teas , Timothy Halkowski , and Felicia Roberts
    2001 “Accomplishing a request without making one: A single case analysis of a primary care visit.” Text & Talk21 (1/2): 55–81.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Goodwin, Marjorie Harness
    2006 “Participation, affect, and trajectory in family directive/response sequences.” Text & Talk26 (4/5): 513–451.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Goodwin, Marjorie Harness , and Asta Cekaite
    2014 “Orchestrating directive trajectories in communicative projects in family interaction.” InRequesting in Social Interaction, edited by Paul Drew and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , 185–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Grice, Paul
    1987 [1989] “Retrospective epilogue.” InStudies in the Way of Words, edited by Paul Grice , 339–385. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Haugh, Michael
    2007 “The co-constitution of politeness implicature in conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics39 (1): 84–110. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.004 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2008 “The place of intention in the interactional achievement of implicature.” InIntention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer, edited by Istvan Kecskes and Jacob Mey , 45–85. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 2015Im/politeness Implicatures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110240078
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110240078 [Google Scholar]
  32. Haugh, Michael , and Wei-Lin Melody Chang
    2015 “Troubles talk, (dis)affiliation and the participation order in Taiwanese-Chinese online discussion boards.” InParticipation in Public and Social Media Interactions, edited by Marta Dynel and Jan Chovanec , 99–133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Heritage, John
    1984 “A change of state token and aspects of its sequential placement.” InStructures of Social Action, edited by Maxwell J. Atkinson and John Heritage , 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 2015 “ Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics88: 88–104. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.008 [Google Scholar]
  35. 2016 “The recruitment matrix.” Research on Language and Social Interaction49 (1): 27–31. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2016.1126440
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1126440 [Google Scholar]
  36. Hofstetter, Emily , and Elizabeth Stokoe
    2015 “Offers of assistance in politician-constituent interaction.” Discourse Studies17 (6): 724–751. doi: 10.1177/1461445615602376
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615602376 [Google Scholar]
  37. Holdcroft, David
    1976 “Forms of indirect communication: an outline.” Philosophy and Rhetoric9 (3): 147–161.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Jacobs, Scott , and Sally Jackson
    1983 “Strategy and structure in conversational influence attempts.” Communication Monographs50 (4): 285–304. doi: 10.1080/03637758309390171
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758309390171 [Google Scholar]
  39. Jefferson, Gail
    1988 “On the sequential organization of troubles talk in ordinary conversation.” Social Problems35 (4): 418–441. doi: 10.2307/800595
    https://doi.org/10.2307/800595 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kádár, Dániel , and Michael Haugh
    2013Understanding Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139382717
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139382717 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kärkkäinen, Elise , and Tiina Keisanen
    2012 “Linguistic and embodied formats for making (concrete) offers.” Discourse Studies14 (5): 587–611. doi: 10.1177/1461445612454069
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612454069 [Google Scholar]
  42. Kendrick, Kobin H. , and Paul Drew
    2014 “The putative preference for offers over requests.” InRequesting in Social Interaction, edited by Paul Drew and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , 87–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2016 “Recruitments: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction49 (1): 1–19. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2016.1126436
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1126436 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kidwell, Mardi
    2000 “Common ground in cross-cultural communication: Sequential and institutional contexts in front desk service encounters.” Issues in Applied Linguistics11 (1): 17–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Leech, Geoffrey
    2014The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  46. Lerner, Gene
    1996 “Finding “face” in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly59 (4): 303–321. doi: 10.2307/2787073
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2787073 [Google Scholar]
  47. Levinson, Stephen
    1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Lindström, Anna
    2005 “Language as social action. A study of how senior citizens request assistance with practical tasks in the Swedish home help service.” InSyntax and Lexis in Conversation, edited by Auli Hakulinen and Margaret Selting , 209–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sidag.17.11lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17.11lin [Google Scholar]
  49. 2017 “Accepting remote proposals.” InEnabling Human Conduct: Naturalistic Studies of Talk-in-interaction in Honour of Emanuel A. Schegloff, edited by Geoffrey Raymond , Gene H. Lerner and John Heritage . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.273.07lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.273.07lin [Google Scholar]
  50. Mey, Jacob L.
    2001Pragmatics. An Introduction. 2nd ed.Oxford: Blackwell. [1993]
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 2010a “Reference and the pragmeme.” Journal of Pragmatics42 (11): 2882–2888. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.009 [Google Scholar]
  52. 2010b “Societal pragmatics.” InThe Pragmatics Encyclopedia, edited by Louise Cummings , 444–446. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Ogiermann, Eva
    2015a “Direct off-record requests? – ‘Hinting’ in family interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics86: 31–35. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.006 [Google Scholar]
  54. 2015b “In/directness in Polish children’s requests at the dinner table.” Journal of Pragmatics82: 67–82. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.007 [Google Scholar]
  55. Pomerantz, Anita
    1980 “Telling my side: “limited access” as a “fishing” device.” Sociological Inquiry50: 186–198. doi: 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00020.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00020.x [Google Scholar]
  56. 1984 “Pursuing a response.” InStructures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis, edited by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage , 152–163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Pomerantz, Anita , and John Heritage
    2013 “Preference.” InHandbook of Conversation Analysis, edited by Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers , 210–228. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Raymond, Geoffrey
    2003 “Grammar and social organization: yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding.” American Sociological Review68: 939–967. doi: 10.2307/1519752
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1519752 [Google Scholar]
  59. Rossi, Giovanni
    2014 “When do people not use language to make requests?” InRequesting in Social Interaction, edited by Paul Drew and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen , 303–334. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Sacks, Harvey
    1992aLectures on Conversation. VolumeI. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 1992bLectures on Conversation. VolumeII. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Sanders, Robert , and Kristine Fitch
    2001 “The actual practice of compliance seeking.” Communication Theory11 (3): 263–289. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑2885.2001.tb00243.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2001.tb00243.x [Google Scholar]
  63. Schegloff, Emanuel
    2007Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  64. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1980 “Preliminaries to preliminaries. ‘Can I ask you a question?’” Sociological Inquiry50 (3/4): 104–152. doi: 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00018.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00018.x [Google Scholar]
  65. Schegloff, Emanual A. , and Gene Lerner
    2009 Beginning to respond: well-prefaced responses to wh-questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction42 (2): 91–115. doi: 10.1080/08351810902864511
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810902864511 [Google Scholar]
  66. Searle, John
    1969Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  67. Sifianou, Maria
    1993 “Off-record indirectness and the notion of imposition.” Multilingua12 (1): 69–79. doi: 10.1515/mult.1993.12.1.69
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1993.12.1.69 [Google Scholar]
  68. 1997 “Politeness and off-record indirectness.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language126: 163–179. doi: 10.1515/ijsl.1997.126.163
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1997.126.163 [Google Scholar]
  69. Stevanovic, Melisa , and Anssi Peräkylä
    2012 “Deontic authority in interaction: the right to announce, propose, and decide.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45 (3): 297–321. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260 [Google Scholar]
  70. Stivers, Tanya , and Federico Rossano
    2010 “Mobilising response.” Research on Language and Social Interaction43 (1): 3–31. doi: 10.1080/08351810903471258
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258 [Google Scholar]
  71. Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen
    2006Request Sequences: The Intersection of Grammar, Interaction and Social Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/sidag.19
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.19 [Google Scholar]
  72. Terkourafi, Marina
    2011 “The puzzle of indirect speech.” Journal of Pragmatics43 (11): 2861–2865. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  73. 2013 “Re-assessing the speech act schema: twenty-first century reflections.” International Review of Pragmatics5(2): 197–216. doi: 10.1163/18773109‑13050203
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-13050203 [Google Scholar]
  74. Walker, Traci
    2013 “Requests.” InPragmatics of Speech Actions, edited by Marina Sbisà and Ken Turner , 445–466. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110214383.445
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214383.445 [Google Scholar]
  75. Weizman, Elda
    1985 “Towards an analysis of opaque utterances: hints as a request strategy.” Theoretical Linguistics12: 153–163. doi: 10.1515/thli.1985.12.s1.153
    https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.1985.12.s1.153 [Google Scholar]
  76. 1989 “Requestive hints.” InCross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies, edited by Shoshana Blum-Kulka , Julianne House and Gabriele Kasper , 71–95. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 2007 “Quantity scales. Towards culture-specific profiles of discourse norms.” InDialogue and Culture, edited by Marion Grein and Edda Weigand , 141–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.1.10wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.1.10wei [Google Scholar]
  78. Wong, Jock
    2015 “A critical look at the description of speech acts.” InInterdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, edited by Alessandro Capone and Jacob L. Mey , 825–855. New York: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.8.2.02hau
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.8.2.02hau
Loading

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