Sidnell2017
| Sidnell2017 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Sidnell2017 |
| Author(s) | Jack Sidnell |
| Title | Action in interaction is conduct under a description |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Action, Interaction, Description, Conversation Analysis |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2017 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Language in Society |
| Volume | 46 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 313-337 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1017/S0047404517000173 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Requests, offers, invitations, complaints, and greetings are some of the many action types routinely invoked in the description and analysis of interaction. But what is the ontological status of, for instance, a request? In what follows I propose that action is conduct under a description. Thus, for the most part, interaction is organized independently of any action description or categori- zation of conduct into discrete action types. Instead, participants in interac- tion draw on the details of the situation in which they find themselves in order to produce conduct that others will recognize and to which they are able to respond in fitted ways. ‘Action’ still plays a key role in the organiza- tion of interaction, however, because accountability attaches not to raw conduct but only to conduct under some particular, action-formulating de- scription.
Notes
