Preferred
| Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Preferred | |
|---|---|
| Author(s): | Danielle Pillet-Shore (University of New Hampshire, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4757-4082) |
| To cite: | Pillet-Shore, Danielle. (2023). Preferred. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7UTKH |
The term ‘preferred’ is used in conversation analytic research on preference to describe how people systematically time/position and design their social actions in interaction when there are relevant alternatives possible. ‘Preferred’ has been used to refer to:
- an action that structurally aligns and cooperates with a prior conversational turn’s initiated course of action/project/activity (e.g., Pomerantz, 1984:63-64; Schegloff, 2007:58-60; Stivers & Robinson, 2006);
- the design of an action—both sequence-initiating (FPP), and sequence-responding (SPP)—that is straightforward and fluent, and delivered at the earliest moment when it may be initially relevantly performed (e.g., Heritage, 1984:265-280; Pillet-Shore, 2010; 2011; 2015; 2016; 2017; 2021; 2023; Robinson & Bolden, 2010; Schegloff, 2007:63-73).
Some CA work conceptualizes preference as connected to “face” (participants’ interdependent, public images of self; Goffman, 1967; Brown & Levinson, 1987; Lerner, 1996) and “affiliation” (participants’ continually updated displays of being ‘with’ or ‘against’ one another; Sidnell, 2010; Steensig, 2020), and thus the relationship of the participants involved (Pillet-Shore, 2010; 2011; 2012a; 2012b; 2015; 2016; 2017; 2021; 2023). From this perspective, preferred actions promote affiliation by preserving face, thereby supporting social solidarity (Clayman, 2002; Heritage, 1984:268-280; Pillet-Shore, 2017; 2021; 2023).
This term is used to describe public forms of conduct that are highly generalized and institutionalized, not the private desires, subjective feelings or psychological preferences of individuals (Heritage, 1984; Pillet-Shore, 2017; 2023; Robinson & Bolden, 2010; Schegloff, 2007; Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks, 1977:362). Given CA’s focus upon action sequences (examining how participants’ audible utterances and visible body-behaviors accomplish particular social actions), preference is based on the possibility of alternative relevant actions (Lerner, 1996:304) since many action types—both sequence-initiating and sequence-responding—involve at least two relevant alternatives. As an example of such alternatives, when transferring something of value (object, assistance/service, information) from one person to another, the person who has the valued transferable (e.g., a drink, a ride, an unfamiliar person’s name) may offer it through an adjacency pair FPP, or the person who is the potential recipient of the valued transferable may request it through a FPP (Schegloff, 2007:82). And when presented with a FPP offer, the recipient may deliver a SPP that accepts or declines it. Preference research argues that such alternatives are not structurally equivalent or equally-valued by participants (Schegloff, 2007:59; Schegloff & Sacks, 1973:314; Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks, 1977:362), presenting evidence that participants position/time and design each alternative differently in systematic, patterned ways (e.g., Pillet-Shore, 2010, 2011, 2017, 2021, 2023; Schegloff, 2007:82-86; but for a different view, see Kendrick & Drew, 2014), with the “preferred” alternative being delivered earlier and more straightforwardly and fluently.
Consider Excerpt (1), which shows an adjacency pair sequence involving two participants, Nina and Charles. Charles is Nina’s adult nephew, and this sequence occurs shortly after he knocks on the door to Nina’s home. As Nina and Charles walk from the door entry area toward the kitchen, Nina produces a preferred FPP at lines 1-2, to which Charles responds with a preferred SPP at line 3.
(1) [F15SB-2; Pillet-Shore, 2017] 01 NIN: Do you want u:m: a cuppa coffee er 02 somethi[n? 03 CHA: [Ye:ah.=I would absolutely lo:ve a cup of coffee.
Nina’s utterance at lines 1-2 is a FPP question that she uses as a vehicle for doing the action of offering. According to one view, this offering action is preferred—there is a “culturally shared preference principle” (Pomerantz & Heritage, 2013:210) that offers are preferred over requests (Sacks, 1992 II:207; Schegloff, 2007:82-86; and for a different view, see Kendrick & Drew, 2014). In terms of design, Nina positions/times her offer of a cup of coffee to Charles at the earliest relevant moment in their interaction, just as they pass from the residence’s family room into its kitchen (where beverages are stored and prepared). Thus, Nina designs her offer as preferred (Pillet-Shore, 2017, 2023), doing ‘being a good host’ and doing ‘hospitality.’
Nina’s offer makes relevant next a SPP that either accepts or declines it. But these alternative relevant actions are not socially, interactionally symmetrical—they are not equally-valued by participants (Heritage, 1984; Schegloff, 2007; Pillet-Shore, 2010, 2011, 2017, 2021). To accept another’s offer is to align with it (structurally cooperating by facilitating the proposed activity; Stivers, 2008; Steensig, 2020), which according to one view constitutes an affiliative, face-affirming SPP action that is supportive of social solidarity (Clayman, 2002; Heritage, 1984:268-280). But to decline another’s offer is a distancing action (Schegloff, 2007:59) that hinders the accomplishment of the activity proffered by the FPP, and thus can be viewed as constituting a disaffiliative, face-threatening SPP action that is destructive of social solidarity (Heritage, 1984:268). Participants characteristically position/time and design each alternative differently.
At line 3, Charles positions/times his SPP response so it starts in terminal overlap with line 2, and he deploys a prosodically and lexically definitive (certain, unqualified) and enthusiastic acceptance that begins with the type-conforming “Ye:ah” (Raymond, 2003) in turn-initial position, contiguous with the offer (Sacks, 1987). These properties of turn/sequence design—straightforward and fluent delivery at the earliest moment when the action may be initially relevantly performed—are termed ‘preferred’ (Heritage, 1984; Pillet-Shore, 2017, 2023; Schegloff, 2007). Through this utterance, Charles accepts Nina’s offer, continuing the action sequence that her FPP set in motion. Participants doing affiliative actions (e.g., SPPs that do accepting/granting; FPPs that do offering) regularly use preferred design like Charles does, producing the action straightforwardly and fluently—without delay, qualification/mitigation, or account. By going on to say “I would absolutely lo:ve a cup of coffee,” Charles may be doing ‘being a gracious guest’—his second TCU at line 3 is analyzable as an upgrade of his preferred response (with “absolutely lo:ve”), and/or as an elaboration that may index his orientation to the specific context of the offer (e.g., the time of day, the reason for his visit, the nature of his relationship with Nina; cf. Schegloff, 2007:60).
By delivering an action with preferred design—at the earliest moment when it may be initially relevantly performed—participants maximize the likelihood of its occurrence (Heritage, 1984:276; Pillet-Shore, 2017, 2023; Pomerantz, 1984). This observably contrasts with participants’ delivery of an action with dispreferred design, which minimizes the likelihood of its occurrence by enabling the possibility that it will be preempted (Heritage, 1984:276; Pillet-Shore, 2017, 2023).
Additional Related Entries:
Cited References:
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Clayman, S. E. (2002). Sequence and solidarity. In Advances in group processes (pp. 229-253). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face to face behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Kendrick, K. & Drew, P. (2014). The putative preference for offers over requests. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Requesting in social interaction (pp. 87-113). John Benjamins.
Lerner, G. H. (1996). Finding “face” in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(4), 303-321.
Pillet-Shore, D. (2010). Making way and making sense: Including newcomers in interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(2), 152-175.
Pillet-Shore, D. (2011). Doing introductions: The work involved in meeting someone new. Communication Monographs, 78(1), 73-95.
Pillet-Shore, D. (2012a). Greeting: Displaying stance through prosodic recipient design. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(4), 375-398.
Pillet-Shore, D. (2012b). The problems with praise in parent-teacher interaction. Communication Monographs, 79(2), 181-204.
Pillet-Shore, D. (2015). Being a “good parent” in parent-teacher conferences. Journal of Communication, 65(2), 373-395.
Pillet-Shore, D. (2016). Criticizing another’s child: How teachers evaluate students during parent-teacher conferences. Language in Society, 45(1), 33-58.
Pillet-Shore, D. (2017). Preference organization. In Oxford research encyclopedia of communication, edited by J. Nussbaum. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Pillet-Shore, D. (2021). When to make the sensory social: Registering in face-to-face openings. Symbolic Interaction, 44(1), 10-39.
Pillet-Shore, D. (in press, 2023). Where the action is: Positioning matters in interaction. Chapter 22 in J. Robinson, R. Clift, K. Kendrick & C. W. Raymond (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of methods in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. C. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 57–101). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Pomerantz, A. & Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 210-228). Oxford: John Wiley and Sons.
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68, 939-967.
Robinson, J. & Bolden, G. (2010). Preference organization of sequence-initiating actions: The case of explicit account solicitations. Discourse Studies, 12(4): 501-533.
Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 54-69). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation [1964–1972] (Vol. 1 and 2), edited by G. Jefferson. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A Primer in conversation analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327.
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361-82.
Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.
Steensig, J. (2020). Conversation analysis and affiliation and alignment. In C. A. Chapelle (ed.), The concise encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 248-253). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(1), 31-57.
Stivers, T. & Robinson, J. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, 35, 367-392.
Additional References:
