Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:48:37.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - “How about Eggs?”

Action Ascription in the Family Decision-Making Process While Grocery Shopping at a Supermarket

from Part II - Practices of Action Ascription

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2022

By
Takeshi Hiramoto  and
Makoto Hayashi
Edited by
Arnulf Deppermann  and
Michael Haugh
Arnulf Deppermann
Affiliation:
Universität Mannheim, Germany
Michael Haugh
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Get access

Summary

By examining sequences in which families consisting of parents and their children make decisions on what to purchase while grocery shopping, this chapter explores how an incongruence between the deontic stance expressed through a speaker’s utterance and the deontic status ordinarily associated with that speaker provides resources for the recipients’ action ascription. Our data show that when the father and the children initiate a decision-making sequence, they are commonly treated by the mother as having less rights to decide what to purchase, while the mother is regularly treated by the father (and the children) as having stronger rights concerning purchase decision making. From this observation, we argue that the father and the children are ordinarily associated with a weaker deontic status with regard to purchase decision making while the mother is associated with a stronger deontic status. Sometimes, however, the father and the children use a grammatical format that indexes a deontic stance that is not consistent with their weaker deontic status. We demonstrate that this incongruence between deontic stance and deontic status provides resources for the mother to respond in such a way as to display her inference about the action performed by the father or the children.

Keywords

grocery shoppingdecision-making sequencedeontic incongruencegrammatical formatsaction ascription
Type
Chapter
Information
Action Ascription in Interaction , pp. 208 - 233
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (2017). Interactional Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2018). Inferential practices in social interaction: A conversationanalytic account. Open Linguistics, 4(1), 1–37.Google Scholar
De Stefani, E. (2013). The collaborative organisation of next actions in a semiotically rich environment: Shopping as a couple. In P. Haddington, Mondada, L. & Nevile, M., eds., Interaction and Mobility: Language and the Body in Motion. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 123–51.Google Scholar
De Stefani, E. (2014). Establishing joint orientation towards commercial objects in a self-service store: How practices of categorisation matter. In Nevile, M., Haddington, P., Heinemann, T. & Rauniomaa, M., eds., Interacting with Objects: Language, Materiality, and Social Activity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 271–94.Google Scholar
De Stefani, E. (forthcoming). Approaching the counter: Situated decision-making of couples shopping in a supermarket. In Fox, B. A., Mondada, L. & Sorjonen, M.-L., eds., Encounters at the counter: Language, embodiment and material objects in shops. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. & Sidnell, J. (2017). The Concept of Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hayashi, M. (2009). Marking a “noticing of departure” in talk: Eh-prefaced turns in Japanese conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(10), 2100–29.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2013). Action formation and its epistemic (and other) backgrounds. Discourse Studies, 15, 551–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, M. & Ruus, R. (2014). Pre‐schoolers, parents and supermarkets: Co‐shopping as a social practice. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(1), 119–26.Google Scholar
Kidwell, M. & Zimmerman, D. H. (2007). Joint attention as action. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(3), 592–611.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1973). The Structure of the Japanese language, Vol. 3. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Laurier, E. (2008). Drinking up endings: Conversational resources of the café. Language & Communication, 28(2), 165–81.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 103–30.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1972). An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In Sudnow, D., ed., Studies in Social Interaction. New York, NY: The Free Press, pp. 31–74.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation, Volume 2. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seuren, L. M. (2018). Assessing answers: Action ascription in third position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, M.-L. & Raevaara, L. (2014). On the grammatical form of requests at the convenience store: Requesting as embodied action. In Drew, P. & Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 243–68.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M. (2011). Participants’ deontic rights and action formation: The case of declarative requests for action. Interaction and Linguistic Structures (InLiSt), 52, 1–37.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M. (2012). Establishing joint decisions in a dyad. Discourse Studies, 14(6), 779–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, M. (2013). Deontic rights in interaction: A conversation analytic study on authority and cooperation. Dissertation, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, M. & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321.Google Scholar
Takagi, T. (2001). Sequence management in Japanese child-adult interactions. Dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Webster, F. E. & Wind, Y. (1972). Organizational Buying Behavior. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×