Koivisto2023b
| Koivisto2023b | |
|---|---|
| BibType | INCOLLECTION |
| Key | Koivisto2023b |
| Author(s) | Aino Koivisto |
| Title | Proposing joint activities in WhatsApp group messaging: notes on action formation, action ascription and response relevance |
| Editor(s) | Aino Koivisto, Heidi Vepsäläinen, Mikko T. Virtanen |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, WhatsApp, action formation, action ascription |
| Publisher | Finnish Literature Society |
| Year | 2023 |
| Language | English |
| City | Helsinki |
| Month | |
| Journal | |
| Volume | |
| Number | |
| Pages | 70–94 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.21435/sflin.22 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | Conversation Analytic Perspectives to Digital Interaction: Practices, Resources, and Affordances |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This article discusses action formation and ascription in Finnish mobile group messaging. It focuses on specific “first actions” that propose future joint activities: one-off invitations and inquiry-like proposals. It examines the issues of response relevance associated with these actions in the context of group messaging. I argue that although the mere existence of a large group of recipients may relax the preference for accepting responses or for responding at all, the turn design of the first actions also has a great impact on how strongly relevant the committing responses become. One-off invitations are typically formulated as interrogatives in the conditional mood or as requests for sign-ups for an event. They are followed by committing responses or accounts for inability to attend. In contrast, the declarative format is associated with events the realisation of which is not dependent on the participation of the group members, which in turn creates less pressure to respond. The proposals for joint activity discussed in the chapter are “inquiry-like”, i.e., they are designed to inquire possibilities to meet based on the basis of existing, similar plans between the proposer and the recipients (i.e., to have lunch together). Accordingly, recipients only post reports of aligning plans and no accounts for not being able to come are offered. In these cases, missing responses cannot be considered as officially absent. The article ends with observations regarding the routinisation of recurring proposals and the role of group-specific interactional history in action formation.
Notes
