CouperKuhlen2022
| CouperKuhlen2022 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | INCOLLECTION |
| Key | CouperKuhlen2022 |
| Author(s) | Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, Sandra A. Thompson |
| Title | Action Ascription and Deonticity in Everyday Advice-Giving Sequences |
| Editor(s) | Arnulf Deppermann, Michael Haugh |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Action Ascription, Deonticity, Advice-Giving |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press |
| Year | 2022 |
| Language | English |
| City | Cambridge |
| Month | |
| Journal | |
| Volume | |
| Number | |
| Pages | 183–207 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1017/9781108673419.010 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | Action Ascription in Social Interaction |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This chapter addresses action ascription in everyday advice-giving sequences, with a focus on those sequences in which advice has not been solicited as such. We argue that for action ascription in both second and third positions, the design (‘composition’) and the sequential location (‘position’) of the prior turn are crucial. Advice-giving typically emerges in the environment of a complaint or troubles-telling; in second position, the recipient must then decide whether or not it warrants advice. In third position, the recipient of a piece of advice must decide how exactly it was meant: as a binding prescription or injunction, or as a mild suggestion for a possible way forward? This is relevant for the advice-recipient in deciding how to deal with the advice: whether to accept or reject/resist it, or to join the other in brainstorming about how to remedy the situation. Relatively strong deontic formats position advice-givers as experts who know best what their interlocutor ‘needs’, and tend to be resisted; weaker formats call on the recipient not so much to accept or reject the advice given as to acknowledge or agree that the action in question would be a possible course of action with beneficial effects.
Notes
