Cover not available

Article published In: Chinese Language and Discourse
Vol. 11:1 (2020) ► pp.107–133

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

The principle of proportionality

Consequentiality and promises in Mandarin conversation

 | University of California, Los Angeles
Published online: 3 June 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cld.20004.zho
Abstract
In Mandarin conversation, utterances about future actions with severe consequences are observed to correlate with bigger promises, marked by devices indicating greater illocutionary force, as compared with those about actions with less serious consequences. Applying the principle of proportionality proposed by Goffman, Erving. 1971. Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, I argue that participants’ design of promise is proportional to the severity of the action consequences, which is evaluated by the participants on a moment-by-moment basis. The ad hoc construction of promises shows that promising is a dynamic process, rather than a one-time action. The proportionality principle may also account for the differences between promises in institutional discourse and ordinary conversation.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
  • 3.Data and methodology
  • 4.Explicit performatives
  • 5.Intensifying emphasis: Lexical prosodic marking of big promises
  • 6.Claiming the result of the promised action
  • 7.Conclusion
  • References
References (61)
References
Attardo, Salvatore. 2001. “umor and irony in interaction: from mode adoption to failure of detection.” In Say not to say: New perspectives on miscommunicatio, ed. by Luigi Anolli, Rita. Ciceri, and Giuseppe. Riva, 166–185. Amsterdam: IOS Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Austin, John Langshaw. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brandom, Robert. 1994. Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Canavan, Alexandra, and George Zipperlen. 1996. CALLFRIEND Mandarin Chinese-Mainland Dialect LDC96S55. Web Download. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1996. CALLHOME Mandarin Chinese Speech LDC96S34. Web Download. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chao, Yuen Ren. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. “Joint commitment.” In Using Language, 289–317. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven. 1992. “Footing in the achievement of neutrality: The case of news interview discourse.” In Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, ed. by Paul Drew, 163–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven, and John Heritage. 2002. The news interview: Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. “Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests.” In Requesting in social interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Paul Drew, 55–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2009. “A sequential approach to affect: The case of ‘disappointment.’” In Talk in interaction – Comparative dimensions, ed. by Markku Haakana, Minna Laakso, and Jan Lindström, 94–123. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Selting, Margret. 2017. Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dong, Xiufang. 2010. “汉语中表示承诺的言语施为动词. [Performative Verbs that Can Express Commitment in Chinese]” 汉语学习 Hanyu Xuexi (2): 23–30.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, Paul. 1987. Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics. 25 (1): 219–253. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick. 2011. “Sources of asymmetry in human interaction: Enchrony, status, knowledge, and agency.” In The morality of knowledge in conversation, ed. by Stivers Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 285–312. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fang, Mei. 2017. “负面评价表达的规约化. [On conventionalization of negative assessment expressions]” 中国语文 Zhongguo Yuwen (2): 131–147.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fish, Karyn, Kathrin Rothermich, and Marc D. Pell. 2017. “The sound of (in) sincerity.” Journal of Pragmatics 1211: 147–161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1971. Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1978. The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Harmondsworth.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1979. “Footing.” Semiotica 25 (1–2): 1–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 1979. “The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation.” In Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 97–121. New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2017. “Teasing.” In the Routledge handbook of language and humor, ed. by Salvatore Attardo, 204–218. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. “Speaker meaning and accountability in interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 48 (1): 41–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto. 2013. “Turn allocation and turn sharing.” In The handbook of conversation analysis, ed. by Sidnell Jack, and Tanya Stivers, 167–190, ‎Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hellbernd, Nele, and Daniela Sammler. 2016. “Prosody conveys speaker’s intentions: Acoustic cues for speech act perception.” Journal of Memory and Language 881: 70–86. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2003. “Designing questions and setting agendas in the news interview.” In Studies in language and social interaction: In honor of Robert Hopper, ed. by Philip Glenn, Curtis Lebaron, and Jennifer Mandelbaum, 57–90. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. “Intersubjectivity and progressivity in person (and place) reference.” In Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives, ed. by Stivers Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 255–280. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John, and Raymond C. Wesley. 2016. “Are explicit apologies proportional to the offenses they address?” Discourse Processes 53 (1–2): 5–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John, Raymond C. Wesley, and Drew, Paul. 2019. “Constructing apologies: Reflexive relationships between apologies and offenses.” Journal of Pragmatics 1421: 185–200. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1957. “Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb.” In Selected Writings II1, 130–47. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kibble, Rodger. 2006. “Speech acts, commitment and multi-agent communication.” Computational & mathematical organization theory 12 (2–3): 127–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kissine, Mikhail. 2008. “From predictions to promises: How to derive deontic commitment.” Pragmatics & Cognition 16 (3): 471–491. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kotthoff, Helga. 2003. “Responding to irony in different contexts: On cognition in conversation.” Journal of pragmatics, 35 (9): 1387–1411. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1984. “Intensity.” In Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin, 43–70. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, P. L. P., Hai Hua Pan, and Lei Zhang. 2013. “Chinese adverbial Quan as a dual-function operator: A domain restrictor and a universal quantifier.” Linguistics and the Human Sciences 8 (2): 169–205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. “Pragmatics.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Charles, and Sandra Thompson. 1981. “A functional reference grammar of Mandarin Chinese.” Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Local, John, and Gareth Walker. 2004. “Abrupt-joins as a resource for the production of multi-unit, multi-action turns.” Journal of Pragmatics 36 (8): 1375–1403. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ogden, Richard. 2012. “Making Sense of Outliers.” Phonetica 691: 48–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Parsons, Talcott. 1991. The social system. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pell, Marc D., Silke Paulmann, Chinar Dara, Areej Alasseri, and Sonja A. Kotz. 2009. “Factors in the recognition of vocally expressed emotions: A comparison of four languages.” Journal of Phonetics 37 (4): 417–435. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1986. “Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims.” Human studies 9 (2–3): 219–229. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1975. “Indirect speech acts.” In Speech acts, 59–82. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1989. “How performatives work.” Linguistics and philosophy 12(5): 535–558. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selting, Margret. 1996. “Prosody as an activity-type distinctive cue in conversation: The case of so-called ‘astonished’.” In Prosody in conversation: Interactional studies, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Margret Selting, 231–270. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shardakova, Maria. 2017. “Politeness, Teasing, and Humor”. In the Routledge Handbook of Language and Humor, ed. by Salvatore Attardo, 219–233. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel, Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks. 1974. “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.” Language 50 (4): 696–735. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2005. “Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position”. Research on language and social interaction 38 (2): 131–158. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2005. “The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction.” Discourse studies 7 (4–5): 481–505. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2015. Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomioka, Satoshi, and Yaping Tsai. 2005. “Domain restrictions for distributive quantification in Mandarin Chinese.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 14 (2): 89–120. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turk, Monica J. 2006. “Projection in Mandarin Chinese conversation: Grammar and social interaction in question-answer sequences.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xie, Xinyang. 2018. “汉语自然会话中的疑问式回应及其互动功能. [The interrogative form response to questions and its interactional function in Chinese daily conversation].” 语言教学与研究. Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies 194(6): 83-92.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xinhuanet. 2018. “吉林长春: ‘电视问政’有镜头 作风建设不停休. [Jilin Changchun: non-stop effort to rectify officials’ style of work through the lens of ‘Questioning Officials on TV’]”. Retrieved from [URL]
Wang, Yu-Fang, Pi-Hua Tsai, and Ya-Ting Yang. 2010. “Objectivity, subjectivity and intersubjectivity: Evidence from qishi (‘actually’) and shishishang (‘in fact’) in spoken Chinese.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (3): 705–727. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yu, Guodong, and Yaxin Wu. 2018. “Inviting in Mandarin: Anticipating the likelihood of the success of an invitation.” Journal of Pragmatics 1251: 130–148. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yue, Yao. 2016. “从互动交际的视角看让步类同语式评价立场的表达. [Stance-taking of the concessive tautology in Mandarin conversation].” 中国语文. Zhongguo Yuwen (Chinese Language) 370(1): 58–69.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue