Preference
| Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Preference | |
|---|---|
| Author(s): | Danielle Pillet-Shore (University of New Hampshire, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4757-4082) |
| To cite: | Pillet-Shore, Danielle. (2023). Preference. 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: |
The term preference (as in “preference organization” or “conversational preference”) is used in conversation analytic research to describe how people systematically time/position and design their social actions in interaction when there are relevant alternatives possible (e.g., Heritage, 1984:265-267; Lerner, 1996; Pillet-Shore, 2010, 2011, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2021, 2023; Pomerantz, 1978, 1984; Robinson, 2020; Sacks, 1987, 1992; Schegloff, 2007; Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks, 1977). 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 first-pair part (FPP), or the person who is the potential recipient of the valued transferable may request it through a FPP (Sacks, 1992 II:207; Schegloff, 2007:82-86). And when presented with a FPP offer, the recipient may deliver a second-pair part (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).
‘Preference’ can refer to distinct but compatible analytic emphases:
- action-based preference, emphasizing how a focal FPP action prefers, invites, or favors the alternative SPP response type that aligns with it—i.e., furthers and/or accomplishes that FPP’s undertaken project/activity (Pomerantz, 1984:63-64; Schegloff, 2007:58-60). An action/utterance is describable as being “preferred” if it structurally cooperates by facilitating interactional progressivity (Stivers & Robinson, 2006), forwarding a prior conversational turn’s initiated course of action (Schegloff, 2007; Stivers & Robinson, 2006). An action-based emphasis has been primarily used to analyze the dis/preference of sequence-responding actions. Note that while the concept of ‘action-based preference’ overlaps with the concept of ‘alignment,’ these are distinct phenomena: ‘alignment’ constitutes the analytically grosser phenomenon of supporting an activity in progress (Stivers, 2008:34) compared to the more granular phenomenon of action-based preference. Participants display alignment when they (work to) produce “discourse and embodied contributions at appropriate sequential junctures relative to those of their cointeractants, thereby supporting the identities, activities, and projects that comprise an encounter” (Kidwell, 2018:292; cf. Stivers, 2008). Thus, it is possible for a participant to display alignment with an activity (e.g., by delivering a vocal continuer during a storytelling; Stivers, 2008:41) without necessarily also doing an “affiliating,” “preferred” action. (A person may do an aligned action by answering a polar ‘yes’-preferring question, but if they respond to that question with a ‘no,’ they would also be doing a dispreferred, disaffiliating SPP.) It may also be possible for a participant to disalign with an activity (e.g., an in-progress storytelling) by intervening with affiliative remarks (see Stivers, 2008:36).
- design-based preference, emphasizing how a focal FPP and/or SPP action (or turn) in interaction is designed/formatted and timed/positioned. An action/utterance is describable as being “preferred” if it is designed straightforwardly and fluently, and delivered at the earliest moment when it may be initially relevantly performed; and “dispreferred” if it is designed with delay(s), speech dysfluencies, and other mitigating features including accounts, appreciations, apologies, qualifications and/or uncertainty markers (Heritage, 1984:265-280; Pillet-Shore, 2010, 2011, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2021, 2023; Robinson & Bolden, 2010; Schegloff, 2007:63-73). Preference has been linked to the linguistic concept of markedness (e.g., preferred SPPs are typically unmarked, whereas dispreferred SPPs are typically marked; Levinson, 1983:334-5). A design-based emphasis has been used to analyze the dis/preference of both sequence-responding actions (e.g., Pomerantz, 1978, 1984; Sacks, 1987) and sequence-initiating actions (e.g., Pillet-Shore, 2010, 2011, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2021, 2023; Robinson & Bolden, 2010).
Most CA scholars agree that preference examines public forms of conduct that are highly generalized and institutionalized, and not the private desires, motivations, subjective feelings or psychological preferences of individuals (e.g., Heritage, 1984; Pillet-Shore, 2017, 2023; Robinson & Bolden, 2010; Schegloff, 2007; Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks, 1977:362). Another minority view, however, suggests that preference “properly deals with the resources and constraints associated with the conventional expression of personal (psychological) preference” (Bilmes, 2014:60), thus generating a third possible analytic emphasis:
- meaning-based preference, emphasizing that preference is context sensitive and thus arguing that analysts should attend to “the resources [interactants] have and the methods they employ in producing meaning” (Bilmes, 2014:52). This view primarily focuses on the way speakers construct their aggravated and conflictual talk (e.g., the responses invited by accusations), noting that “the claimed ‘preference for agreement’ seems to be largely reversed when the interactants are arguing” (Bilmes, 2014:58; cf. Atkinson & Drew, 1979; Schegloff, 2007:73 [footnote 6]).
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; Stivers, 2008), 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; whereas dispreferred actions promote disaffiliation by threatening face, thereby undermining social solidarity (Clayman, 2002; Heritage, 1984:268-280; Pillet-Shore, 2017, 2021, 2023). According to this view, studies of preference collectively suggest that “there is a ‘bias’ intrinsic to many aspects of the organization of talk which is generally favourable to the maintenance of bonds of solidarity between actors and which promotes the avoidance of conflict” (Heritage, 1984:265).
While earlier work suggests that preference is binary or dichotomous (e.g., a SPP may be preferred or dispreferred), more recent work suggests that there may be benefits to conceptualizing preference instead as:
- a matrix containing both congruent and incongruent possibilities: action/design congruence occurs when a person produces a preferred action with preferred design, or a dispreferred action with dispreferred design; and incongruence occurs when a person produces a preferred action with dispreferred design (e.g., accepting an invitation after some delay, which can sound ‘reluctant’), or a dispreferred action with preferred design (e.g., declining/rejecting an offer/proposal/request quickly or without mitigation or account, which can sound ‘rude’; Heritage, 1984:268; Pillet-Shore, 2017, 2021, 2023; Schegloff, 2007:73; Sidnell, 2010:86); and/or
- a continuum (e.g., ranging from “‘very preferred’ to ‘very dispreferred’” [Robinson, 2020:219]; cf. Pillet-Shore, 2021, 2023). For instance, if applied to SPPs, a continuum could recognize “that the (com)positioning of responses… is shaped by an answer’s relationship to, or alignment with, multiple dimensions of an initiating action” (Robinson, 2020:219; cf. Heritage & Raymond, 2021).
CA research has described several “preference principles” that implicitly guide how participants “act and react in a variety of interactional situations” (Pomerantz & Heritage, 2013:210; for review of several such principles, see Pillet-Shore, 2017). Since “members of different cultural groups seem inclined to weigh different preference principles differently,” it is important to conduct “culturally-specific studies” (Pomerantz & Heritage, 2013:225). In addition, there are occasions when more than one preference principle is operative—when participants orient to concurrent preferences. Although concurrent preference principles may converge, in some cases they conflict, tacitly guiding the participants to act in divergent ways. Thus, Pomerantz & Heritage (2013) caution against potential misuse or oversimplification of the terms/concepts of preferred and dispreferred, urging analysts to recognize that preference phenomena are often more complex than they initially appear.
Additional Related Entries:
Cited References:
Atkinson, M. J. & Drew, P. (1979). Order in court: The organization of verbal interaction in judicial settings. Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, NJ.
Bilmes, J. (2014). Preference and the conversation analytic endeavor. Journal of Pragmatics, 64, 52-71.
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.
Heritage, J. & Raymond, C. W. (2021). Preference and polarity: Epistemic stance in question design. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54:1, 39-59.
Kidwell, M. (2018). Early alignment in police traffic stops. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(3): 292-312.
Lerner, G. H. (1996). Finding “face” in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(4), 303-321.
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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. (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 79-112). New York, NY: Academic 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. Pp.210-228 in J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis. Oxford: John Wiley and Sons.
Robinson, J. D. (2020). Revisiting preference organization in context: A qualitative and quantitative examination of responses to information seeking. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53(2), 197-222.
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:
