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-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:24:23.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Intention Ascriptions as a Means to Coordinate Own Actions with Others’ Actions

from Part II - Practices of Action Ascription

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2022

By
Arnulf Deppermann  and
Julia Kaiser
Edited by
Arnulf Deppermann  and
Michael Haugh
Arnulf Deppermann
Affiliation:
Universität Mannheim, Germany
Michael Haugh
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Get access

Summary

While the role of intentions in the constitution of actions gives rise to complex and heavily controversial questions, it appears to be indisputable that action ascription in interaction mostly does without any overt ascription of intention. Yet, sometimes participants explicitly ascribe intentions to their interlocutors in order to make sense of their prior actions. The chapter examines intention ascriptions in response to a partner’s adjacent prior turn using the German modal verb construction willst du/wollen Sie (do you want). The analysis focuses on the aspect of the prior action the intention ascription addresses (action type, projected next action, motive etc.), the action the intention ascription performs itself, and the next action they make relevant from the prior speaker. It was found that intention ascriptions are used to clarify and intersubjectively ground the meaning of the prior turn, which seems otherwise underspecified, ambiguous or puzzling. Yet, they are also used to adumbrate criticism, e.g., that the prior turn projects a course of future actions which is considered to be inadequate, or to expose a concealed, problematic allegedly “real” meaning of the prior turn.

Keywords

intentionintersubjectivityformulationaction ascriptionGermanmodal verb constructions
Type
Chapter
Information
Action Ascription in Interaction , pp. 135 - 159
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

Antaki, C. (2008). Formulations in psychotherapy. In Peräkylä, A., Antaki, C., Vehviläinen, S. & Leudar, I., eds., Conversation Analysis and Psychotherapy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 26–42.Google Scholar
Antaki, C. (2012). Affiliative and disaffiliative candidate understandings. Discourse Studies, 14(5), 531–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antaki, C., Barnes, R. & Leudar, I. (2005). Diagnostic formulations in psychotherapy. Discourse Studies, 7(6), 627–47.Google Scholar
Arundale, R. B. (2008). Against (Gricean) intentions at the heart of human interaction. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 229–58.Google Scholar
Barnes, R. (2007). Formulations and the facilitation of common agreement in meetings talk. Text & Talk, 27(3), 273–96.Google Scholar
Brentano, F. (1874). Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Childs, C. (2012a). Directing and requesting: Two interactive uses of the mental state terms “want” and “need.” Text & Talk, 32(6), 727–49.Google Scholar
Childs, C. (2012b). “I’m not X, I just want Y”: Formulating “wants” in interaction. Discourse Studies, 14(2), 181–96.Google Scholar
Curl, T. (2006). Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1257–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2011). The study of formulations as a key to an Interactional Semantics. Human Studies, 34(2), 115–28.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2014). Handlungsverstehen und Intentionszuschreibung in der Interaktion I: Intentionsbekundungen mit wollen. In Bergmann, P., Birkner, K., Gilles, P., Spiekermann, H. & Streck, T., eds., Sprache im Gebrauch. Räumlich, zeitlich, interaktional. Festschrift für Peter Auer. Heidelberg: Winter, pp. 309–26.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. & Helmer, H. (2013). Zur Grammatik des Verstehens im Gespräch: Inferenzen anzeigen und Handlungskonsequenzen ziehen mit also und dann. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 32(1), 1–40.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619.Google Scholar
Drake, V. (2016). German questions and turn-final oder. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 17, 168–95.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (2003). Comparative analysis of talk-in-interaction in different institutional settings: A sketch. In Glenn, P., Lebaron, C. & Mandelbaum, J., eds., Studies in Language and Social Interaction: In Honor of Robert Hopper. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 293–308.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (2018). Inferences and indirectness in interaction. Open Linguistics, 4(1), pp. 241–59.Google Scholar
Duranti, A. (1993). Truth and intentionality: Towards an ethnographic critique. Cultural Anthropology, 8(2), 214–45.Google Scholar
Duranti, A. (2015). The Anthropology of Intentions: Language in a World of Others. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, D. (2008). Intentionality and mens rea in police interrogations: The production of actions as crimes. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 177–99.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. & Sidnell, J. (2017). On the concept of action in the study of interaction. Discourse Studies, 19, 515–35.Google Scholar
Fritz, G. (2000). Zur semantischen Entwicklungsgeschichte von “wollen.” Futurisches, Epistemisches und Verwandtes. In Richter, G., Riecke, J. & Schuster, B.-M., eds., Raum, Zeit, Medium – Sprache und ihre Determinanten. Festschrift für Hans Ramge zum 60. Geburtstag. Darmstadt: Hessische Historische Kommission, pp. 263–81.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1999). Intentions in the Experience of Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L., eds., Syntax and Semantics 3, Speech Acts. New York, NY: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words, London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2008). The place of intention in the interactional achievement of implicature. In Kecskes, I. & Mey, J., eds., Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 45–85.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2013). Speaker meaning and accountability in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 48(1), 41–56.Google Scholar
Haugh, M. (2017). Implicature and the inferential substrate. In Cap, P. & Dynel, M., eds., Implicitness: From Lexis to Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 281–304.Google Scholar
Haugh, M., ed. (2008b). Intention in pragmatics. Special issue of Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(2), 99–260.Google Scholar
Helmer, H. & Zinken, J. (2019). Das heißt (“that means”) for formulations and du meinst (“you mean”) for repair? Interpretations of prior speakers’ turns in German. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(2), 159–76.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Watson, D. R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In Psathas, G., ed., Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. London: Irvington, pp. 123–62.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984a). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984b). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, M. J. & Heritage, J., eds., Structures of Social action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 299–345.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Husserl, E. (1950). Husserliana 3: Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie. Erstes Buch: Allgemeine Einführung in die reine Phänomenologie, ed. by Biemel, W.. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Husserl, E. (1976). Husserliana 6: Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phänomenologie. Eine Einleitung in die phänomenologische Philosophie, ed. by Biemel, W.. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. & Drew, P. (2014). The putative preference for offers over requests. In Drew, P. & Couper-Kuhlen, E., eds., Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 87–114.Google Scholar
König, K. (2020). Prosodie und epistemic stance: Konstruktionen mit finalem oder. In Imo, W. & Lanwer, J., eds., Prosodie und Konstruktionsgrammatik. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 167–99.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945). Phénoménologie de la perception. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1988). Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy. Communication Monographs, 55(4), 360–73.Google Scholar
Potter, J. & Edwards, D. (2013). Conversation analysis and psychology. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T., eds., Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 701–25.Google Scholar
Raymond, C. W. & Stivers, T. (2016). The omnirelevance of accountability: Off-record account solicitations. In Robinson, J. D., ed., Accountability in Social Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 321–53.Google Scholar
Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. New York, NY: Hutchinson’s University Library.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schütz, A. (1974 [1932]). Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Schütz, A. & Luckmann, T. (1979). Strukturen der Lebenswelt, Vol. 1. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1983). Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. & Enfield, N. J. (2014). The ontology of action, in interaction. In Enfield, N. J., Kockelman, P. & Sidnell, J., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 423–46.Google Scholar
Weiste, E. & Peräkylä, A. (2013). A comparative conversation analytic study of formulations in Psychoanalysis and Cognitive Psychotherapy. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(4), 299–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1950). Philosophische Untersuchungen. In Wittgenstein, L., ed., Werkausgabe, Vol. I. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 225–580.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
×