Cover not available

Article published In: Advances in the Study of Social Action in Online Interaction
Edited by Valeria Sinkeviciute
[Internet Pragmatics 7:1] 2024
► pp. 7–34

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

The invitation game

Strategies for launching the prospect of meeting in Danish Tinder chats between male and female users

 | University of Southern Denmark
Published online: 4 June 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00111.and
Abstract
This paper analyses Danish Tinder chats that in the very first message after ‘matching’ immediately launch the prospect of meeting. A collection of 41 threads is analyzed using Goffman’s (Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, . 1974. Frame Analysis. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) concepts of face and interactional framing, outlining methods participants use to open a chat after having matched and addressing the interest and purpose they have approached in the other party. Methods include, in particular, inferences that can be made based on the type of activity or setting suggested for a future meeting, indirectness and ambiguity related to how the social actions are designed, and the conversational cues used such as emojis and enthusiasm markers. The analysis also shows how participants work out and negotiate whether they have a common interest in meeting, in particular, how they exploit and deal with ambiguities used extensively as a mechanism for flirting. The analysis further suggests that practices adhere to gender-stereotypes showing how participants may handle and orient to a norm that women should not agree to meet with a stranger early on in a chat correspondence.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Invitations as social action
  • 3.Launching invitations in a first move: Ambiguity and playfulness
  • 4.Data
  • 5.Using invitation formats to address potential implications from having matched
    • 5.1Suggesting a meeting as a first move
    • 5.2Inquiring about the recipient’s willingness
    • 5.3Announcing willingness to meet
  • 6.Playing with the prospect of meeting
    • 6.1Proposing implausible future common activities
    • 6.2Alluding to future common scenarios where the recipient plays an implausible role
    • 6.3Pick-up lines that include references to a future meeting
  • 7.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (43)
References
Al Rashdi, Fathiya. 2018. “Functions of emojis in WhatsApp interaction among Omanis.” Discourse, Context &Media 261: 117–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Andersen, Elisabeth Muth. under review. “‘So fast on the keys, when do you have time to meet’: Interactionally generated invitations in Danish Tinder chats.”
Bateson, Gregory. 1972. Theory of Play and Fantasy: Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1976. “A theory of play and fantasy: Steps to an ecology of mind.” In Ritual, Play, and Performance: Readings in the Social Sciences/Theatre, ed. by Richard Schechner, and Mady Schuman, 67–73. New York: Seabury Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bella, Spyridoula. 2009. “Invitations and politeness in Greek: The age variable.” Journal of Politeness Research 5(2): 243–271. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bella, Spyridoula, and Amalia Moser. 2018. “What’s in a first? The link between impromptu invitations and their responses.” Journal of Pragmatics 1251: 96–110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berkowitz, Dana, Justine Tinkler, Alana Peck, and Lynnette Coto. 2021. “Tinder: A game with gendered rules and consequences.” Social Currents 8(5): 491–509. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Steven Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cunningham, Michael R. 1989. “Reactions to heterosexual opening gambits: Female selectivity and male responsiveness.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 15(1): 27–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Danesi, Marcel. 2017. The Semiotics of Emoji: The Rise of Visual Language in the Age of the Internet. London: Bloomsbury. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, Paul. 2018. “Equivocal invitations.” Journal of Pragmatics 1251: 62–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eslami, Zohreh R. 2005. “Invitations in Persian and English: Ostensible or genuine?” Intercultural Pragmatics 2(4): 453–480. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fisher, Maryanne L., Sarah Coughlin, and T. Joel Wade. 2020. “Can I have your number? Men’s perceived effectiveness of pick-up lines used by women.” Personality and Individual Differences 1531, 109664. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
García, Carmen. 1999. “The three stages of Venezuelan invitations and responses.” Multilingua 18(4): 391–434. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glenn, Phillip J., and Mark L. Knapp. 1987. “The interactive framing of play in adult conversations.” Communication Quarterly 35(1): 48–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1974. Frame Analysis. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1978. “Response cries.” Language: 787–815. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert P. 1975. “Logic and conversation.” In Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerry Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Isaacs, Ellen A., and Herbert H. Clark. 1990. “Ostensible invitations.” Language in Society 19(4): 493–509. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kallis, Rhiannon B. 2020. “Understanding the motivations for using Tinder.” Qualitative Research Reports in Communication 21(1): 66–73. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kleinke, Chris L., Frederick B. Meeker, and Richard A. Staneski. 1986. “Preference for opening lines: Comparing ratings by men and women.” Sex Roles 15(11): 585–600. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. 1996. “Finding ‘face’ in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly 59(4): 303–321. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Licoppe, Christian. 2021. “The spectre of ‘ghosting’ and the sequential organization of post-match Tinder chat conversations.” In Analysing Digital Interaction, ed. by Joanne Meredith, David Giles, and Wyke Stommel, 155–176. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Margutti, Piera, Liisa Tainio, Paul Drew, and Véronique Traverso. 2018. “Invitations and responses across different languages: Observations on the feasibility and relevance of a cross-linguistic comparative perspective on the study of actions.” Journal of Pragmatics 1251: 52–61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Márquez Reiter, Rosina, and David M. Frohlich. 2020. “A pragmatics of intimacy.” Internet Pragmatics 3(1): 1–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Placencia, María Elena, and Amanda Lower. 2017. “Compliments and compliment responses.” In Pragmatics of Social Media, ed. by Christian R. Hoffmann, and Wolfram Bublitz, 633–660. Berilin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1988. “Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy.” Communications Monographs 55(4): 360–373. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rijk, Lynn de, and Wyke Stommel. 2023. “Where to start? Initiating post-match chat interaction on Tinder.” In Conversation Analytic Perspectives to Digital Interaction: Practices, Resources, and Affordances, ed. by Aino Koivisto, Heidi Vepsäläinen, and Mikko T. Virtanen, 127–147. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roca-Cuberes, Carles, Will Gibson, and Michael Mora-Rodriguez. 2023. “Relationship initiation and formation in post-match Tinder chat conversations.” Discourse & Communication 17(4): 462–493. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rüdiger, Sofia, and Daria Dayter. 2020. “Manbragging online: Self-praise on pick-up artists’ forums.” Journal of Pragmatics 1611: 16–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1979. “Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 23–78. New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sobkowiak, Mikołaj. 2006. “Modalverbet skulle i dansk og dets engelske ækvivalenter [The modal verb skulle in Danish and its English equivalents].” Folia Scandinavica Posnaniensia 91: 33–47.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Speer, Susan A. 2017. “Flirting: A designedly ambiguous action?” Research on Language and Social Interaction 50(2): 128–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1998. “The relativity of linguistic strategies: Rethinking power and solidarity in gender and dominance.” In The Feminist Critique of Language, ed. by Deborah Cameron, 261–279. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. “Framing and face: The relevance of the presentation of self to linguistic discourse analysis.” Social Psychology Quarterly 72(4): 300–305. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. “The medium is the metamessage.” In Discourse 2.0: Language and New Media, ed. by Deborah Tannen, and Anna Marie Trester, 99–117. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah, and Cynthia Wallat. 1993. “Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview.” In Framing in Discourse, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 14–56. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wolfson, Nessa. 1989. Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, Yiqiong, Min Wang, and Ying Li. 2021. “More than playfulness: Emojis in the comments of a WeChat official account.” Internet Pragmatics 4(2): 247–271. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Andersen, Elisabeth Muth
2025. Flirting with categories. Journal of Language and Sexuality 14:2 ► pp. 149 ff. DOI logo
Andersen, Elisabeth Muth
2025. “So fast on the keys, when do you have time to meet”: Interactionally generated invitations in Danish Tinder chats. Discourse, Context & Media 64 ► pp. 100849 ff. DOI logo
Gershon, Ilana
2025. Seeking romance in a marketplace of profiles: a commentary. Discourse, Context & Media 68 ► pp. 100948 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 march 2026. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue