Displaying entitlement: Accounts in Request Sequences
Issue: Vol 5 No. 3 (2020)
Journal: East Asian Pragmatics
Adopting the methodology of Conversation Analysis, this study researches into accounts in request sequences in mundane Mandarin conversations. It demonstrates that accounts are normatively due in request sequences, which are placed normally in four sequential positions, namely pre-expansions, the request turn (either prior or subsequent to the request proper), insert expansions and post-expansions. Across these positions, accounts usually accomplish four main interactional imports: soliciting pre-emptive offers, justifying the initiation of the request, forestalling a dispreferred response and legitimizing the initiated request. These functions can be managed through providing background information attributing to the requester’s trouble, his inability to fulfill/ get the requested action/ the requested object and expressing his immediate or future needs. Taken together, accounts display the requester’s normative orientation to which accounts are deployed as a device showing the requester’s entitlement to make a request.
Author: Shu Liu
Antaki, C. (1994). Analysing Everyday Explanation: A Casebook of Methods. London: SAGE.
Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1984). Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baranova, J. & Dingemanse, M. (2016). Reasons for requests. Discourse Studies, 18(6): 641-675.
Bolden, G. B. & Robinson, J. D. (2011). Soliciting accounts with why-interrogatives in conversation. Journal of Communication, 61: 96-119.
Clark, H. (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clayman, S. E. (2013). Turn-constructional units and the transition-relevance place. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 150-166). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Clayman, S. E. & Heritage, J. (2014). Benefactors and beneficiaires: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction (pp. 55-86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Curl, T. S. (2006). Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics, 38: 1257-1280.
Curl, T. S. & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(2): 129-153.
Davidson, J. (1984). Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 102-128). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Drew, P. (1984). Speakers’ reportings in invitation sequences. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action (pp. 129-151). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Drew, P. (2005). Conversation analysis. In K. L. Fitch & R. E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of Language and Social Interaction (pp. 71-102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Heinemann, T. (2006). “Will you or can’t you?”: Displaying entitlement in interrogative requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 38: 1081-1104.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Heritage, J. (1988). Explanations as accounts: A conversation analytic perspective. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Analysing Everyday Explanation: A Casebook Of Methods (pp. 127-144). London: SAGE.
Heritage, J. (2012). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45: 25-50.
Hoey, E. & Kendrick, K. H. (2018). Conversation analysis. In A. M. B. de Groot & P. Hagoort (Eds.), Research Methods in Psycholinguistics and The Neurobiology of Language: A Practical Guide (pp. 151-173). Hoboken: Wiley.
Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (1990). Accounting for proposals. Journal of Pragmatics, 14: 111-124.
Lindström, A. (2005). Language as social action: A study of how senior citizens request assistance with practical tasks in the Swedish home help service. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation (pp. 209-233). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Parry, R. (2013). Giving reasons for doing something now or at some other time. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(2): 105-124.
Pomerantze, A. (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies, 9(2-3): 219-229.
Pomerantz, A. & Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 210-228). Chichester: John Wiley.
Sacks, H. (1984). Notes on methodology. In J. Maxwell Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action (pp. 21-27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation Analysis (Fall 1964-Spring 1972). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Sacks. H, Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50: 696-735.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization In Interaction: A Primer In Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scott, M. & Lyman, S. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33(1): 46-62.
Taleghani-Nikazm, C. (2006). Request Sequences: The Intersection Of Grammar, Interaction And Social Context. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Waring, H. Z. (2007). The multi-functionality of accounts in advice giving. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(3): 367-379.
Wootton, A. (1981). The management of grantings and rejections by parents in request sequences. Semiotica, 37: 59-90.