Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prompting Social Action as a Higher-Order Pragmatic Act

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use

Part of the book series: Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology ((PEPRPHPS,volume 9))

Abstract

It is widely accepted in pragmatics that one of the key things accomplished through language in interaction is the delivery of actions. However, there is much less agreement as to how we might best theorise action vis-à-vis both what is said and what is left unsaid. While the focus in pragmatics was initially on speech acts, speech act theory has subsequently been critiqued for reducing an account of social action to the illocutionary intentions of speakers and for neglecting those actions that are not immediately salient in folk discourse. Pragmatic act theory (Mey J, Pragmatics. An introduction, 2nd edn. Blackwell, Oxford, 2001) offers a promising alternative to speech act theory in that it situates the analysis of action within discursive interaction. In this chapter, I consider the way in which pragmatic act theory can usefully inform the analysis of a set of inter-related social actions that comes under the umbrella of what might be termed “prompting”. Prompting social action involves one participant inviting another participant to initiate some kind of social action sequence, thereby avoiding accountability for having launched the social action in question. After discussing examples of the wide range of social actions that can be embedded within a prompting frame, with a particular focus on instances where invitations and proposals are prompted, I suggest that prompting social action more generally constitutes a higher-order pragmatic act.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    I propose here the term “prompting” in place of the term “soliciting” that I earlier used (Culpeper and Haugh 2014: 188, 190; Haugh 2015: 262–268). This is an attempt to forestall the assumption that the speaker is necessarily always intending to bring about the social action in question, as is the case when attempting, for instance, an analysis of hinting (cf. Ogiermann 2015b: 31).

  2. 2.

    The remaining examples in this chapter have been transcribed, where audio(visual) recordings are available, using standard conventions from conversation analysis (Jefferson 2004).

  3. 3.

    I would like to thank Paul Drew, John Heritage and Bernadette Vine for sharing data that is drawn upon in the analysis in this section, in addition to data I have myself collected.

  4. 4.

    As Tseng (2010) has argued, scamming personal information through spam email or calling also constitutes an instance of “fishing” for personal details that will be used in ways that are not in the interests of the person providing them.

  5. 5.

    The abbreviations in the morphological gloss in this example represent the following: Te = ‘te’-form; Past = past tense; Quot = quotation; Nomi = nominaliser; Cop = copula.

References

  • Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, K., & Harnish, R. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beach, W. (1995). Conversation analysis: “okay” as a clue for understanding consequentiality. In S. J. Sigman (Ed.), The consequentiality of conversation (pp. 259–289). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolden, G. B. (2009). Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker ‘so’ in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 974–998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capone, A. (2005). Pragmemes (a study with reference to English and Italian). Journal of Pragmatics, 37(9), 1355–1371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, W.-L. M. (2015). Face and face practices in talk-in-interaction: A study in interactional pragmatics. London: Equinox.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clayman, S., & Heritage, J. (2014). Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction (pp. 51–82). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Etelämäki, M. (2015). Nominated actions and their targeted agents in Finnish conversational directives. Journal of Pragmatics, 78, 7–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culpeper, J., & Haugh, M. (2014). Pragmatics and the English language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curl, T. S. (2006). Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(8), 1257–1280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deppermann, A. (2011). The study of formulations as a key to an interactional semantics. Human Studies, 34, 115–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downing, A. (2008). Requesting in library reference service ineractions. Unpublished PhD dissertation, State University of New Jersey, Rutgers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drew, P. (1984). Speakers’ reportings in invitation sequences. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 102–128). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drew, P., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). Requesting – From speech act to recruitment. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction (pp. 1–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drew, P., Walker, T., & Ogden, R. (2013). Self-repair and action construction. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 71–94). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enfield, N. J. (2014). Human agency and the infrastructure for requests. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction (pp. 35–53). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukushima, S. (2004). Evaluation of politeness: The case of attentiveness. Multilingua, 23, 365–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fukushima, S. (2015). In search of another understanding of politeness: From the perspective of attentiveness. Journal of Politeness Research, 11(2), 261–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fukushima, S., & Haugh, M. (2014). The role of emic understandings in theorizing im/politeness: The metapragmatics of attentiveness, empathy and anticipatory inference in Japanese and Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 74, 165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, D. (2000). Soliciting advice: The role of sequential placement in mitigating face threat. Communication Monographs, 67(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, M. (2007). The co-constitution of politeness implicature in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 84–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, M. (2009). Intention(ality) and the conceptualisation of communication in pragmatics. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 29(1), 91–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, M. (2012). Conversational interaction. In K. Allan & K. M. Jaszczolt (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 251–274). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, M. (2015). Im/politeness implicatures. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, M. (forthcoming). Prompting offers of assistance in interaction. Pragmatics and Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, M., & Carbaugh, D. (2015). Self-disclosure in initial interactions amongst speakers of American and Australian English. Multilingua, 34(4), 461–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, M., & Chang, W.-L. M. (2015). Troubles talk, (dis)affiliation and the participation order in Taiwanese-Chinese online discussion boards. In M. Dynel & J. Chovanec (Eds.), Participation in public and social media interactions (pp. 99–133). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, J. (1984). A change of state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In M. J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holdcroft, D. (1976). Forms of indirect communication: An outline. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 9(3), 147–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopper, R. (2005). A cognitive agnostic in conversation analysis: When do strategies affect spoken interaction? In H. te Molder & J. Potter (Eds.), Conversation and cognition (pp. 134–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Issacs, E. A., & Clark, H. H. (1990). Ostensible invitations. Language in Society, 19, 493–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1983). Strategy and structure in conversational influence attempts. Communication Monographs, 50(4), 285–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, G. (1988). On the sequential organization of troubles talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems, 35(4), 418–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kecskes, I. (2010). The paradox of communication. Socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics. Pragmatics and Society, 1(1), 50–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendrick, K. H., & Drew, P. (2014). The putative preference for offers over requests. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction (pp. 87–113). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendrick, K. H., & Drew, P. (2016). Recruitments: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In T. Stivers & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 103–130). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics. An introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mey, J. (2010a). Reference and the pragmeme. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(11), 2882–2888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mey, J. (2010b). Societal pragmatics. In L. Cummings (Ed.), The pragmatics encyclopedia (pp. 444–446). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nevile, M., & Rendle-Short, J. (2009). A conversation analysis view of communication as jointly accomplished social interaction: An unsuccessful proposal for a social visit. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 28(3), 75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogiermann, E. (2015a). Direct off-record requests? – ‘Hinting’ in family interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 31–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogiermann, E. (2015b). In/directness in Polish children’s requests at the dinner table. Journal of Pragmatics, 82, 67–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pillet-Shore, D. (2011). Doing introductions: The work involved in meeting someone new. Communication Monographs, 78(1), 73–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pomerantz, A. (1980). Telling my side: “limited access” as a “fishing” device. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 186–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pomerantz, A. (forthcoming). Inferring the purpose of a prior query and responding accordingly. In G. Raymond, G. H. Lerner, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Enabling human conduct: Naturalistic studies of talk-in-interaction in honour of Emanuel A. Schegloff. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pomerantz, A., & Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), Handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 210–228). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. (1979). Expression and meaning. Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sidnell, J., & Enfield, N. J. (2014). The ontology of action, in interaction. In N. J. Enfield, P. Kockelman, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic anthropology(pp. 423–446). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sifianou, M. (1993). Off-record indirectness and the notion of imposition. Multilingua, 12(1), 69–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sifianou, M. (1997). Politeness and off-record indirectness. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 126, 163–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilising response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terasaki, A. K. ([1976]2004). Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis. Studies from the first generation (pp. 171–223). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tseng, M.-Y. (2010). The pragmatic act of fishing for personal details: From choice to performance. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(7), 1982–1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsohatzidis, S. (1989). Two consequences of hinting. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 22(4), 288–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction (2nd ed.). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, J. (2015). A critical look at the description of speech acts. In A. Capone & J. Mey (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society (pp. 825–856). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, J. (forthcoming). The ‘emes’ of linguistics. In K. Allan, A. Capone, I. Kecskes (Eds.), Pragmemes and theories of language use. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zinken, J., & Ogiermann, E. (2011). How to propose an action as objectively necessary: The case of Polish trzeba x (“one needs to x”). Research on Language and Social Interaction, 44(3), 263–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zinken, J., & Ogiermann, E. (2013). Responsibility and action: Invariants and diversity in requests for objects in British English and Polish interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(3), 256–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia

    Michael Haugh

Authors
  1. Michael Haugh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Haugh .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Keith Allan

  2. Department of Cognitive Science, University of Messina, Messina, Italy

    Alessandro Capone

  3. State University of New York, Albany, New York, USA

    Istvan Kecskes

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Haugh, M. (2016). Prompting Social Action as a Higher-Order Pragmatic Act. In: Allan, K., Capone, A., Kecskes, I. (eds) Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 9. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43491-9_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43491-9_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43490-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43491-9

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation