Cover not available
Article published In:
Chinese Language and Discourse
Vol. 11:1 (2020) ► pp.107–133

The principle of proportionality

Consequentiality and promises in Mandarin conversation

| University of California, Los Angeles

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 (1971), 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.

Keywords: Interactional Linguistics, interactional action, promising, Mandarin 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


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 3 June 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cld.20004.zho
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
Austin, John Langshaw
1962 How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Brandom, Robert
1994 Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canavan, Alexandra, and George Zipperlen
1996 CALLFRIEND Mandarin Chinese-Mainland Dialect LDC96S55. Web Download. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
1996 CALLHOME Mandarin Chinese Speech LDC96S34. Web Download. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Chao, Yuen Ren
1968 A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H.
1996 “Joint commitment.” In Using Language, 289–317. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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
Clayman, Steven, and John Heritage
2002 The news interview: Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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
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
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Selting, Margret
2017 Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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
Drew, Paul
1987 Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics. 25 (1): 219–253. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Fish, Karyn, Kathrin Rothermich, and Marc D. Pell
2017 “The sound of (in) sincerity.” Journal of Pragmatics 1211: 147–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1971 Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
1978 The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
1979 “Footing.” Semiotica 25 (1–2): 1–30. DOI logoGoogle 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
Haugh, Michael
2017 “Teasing.” In the Routledge handbook of language and humor, ed. by Salvatore Attardo, 204–218. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “Speaker meaning and accountability in interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 48 (1): 41–56. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. DOI logoGoogle 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
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
Heritage, John, and Raymond C. Wesley
2016 “Are explicit apologies proportional to the offenses they address?” Discourse Processes 53 (1–2): 5–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, Raymond C. Wesley, and Drew, Paul
2019 “Constructing apologies: Reflexive relationships between apologies and offenses.” Journal of Pragmatics 1421: 185–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
1957 “Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb.” In Selected Writings II1, 130–47. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kibble, Rodger
2006 “Speech acts, commitment and multi-agent communication.” Computational & mathematical organization theory 12 (2–3): 127–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kissine, Mikhail
2008 “From predictions to promises: How to derive deontic commitment.” Pragmatics & Cognition 16 (3): 471–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kotthoff, Helga
2003 “Responding to irony in different contexts: On cognition in conversation.” Journal of pragmatics, 35 (9): 1387–1411. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
1983 “Pragmatics.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles, and Sandra Thompson
1981 “A functional reference grammar of Mandarin Chinese.” Berkeley: University of California Press.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogden, Richard
2012 “Making Sense of Outliers.” Phonetica 691: 48–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parsons, Talcott
1991 The social system. New York: Free Press.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita
1986 “Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims.” Human studies 9 (2–3): 219–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reber, Elisabeth
2012 Affectivity in Interaction: Sound objects in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R.
1969 Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1975 “Indirect speech acts.” In Speech acts, 59–82. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989 “How performatives work.” Linguistics and philosophy 12(5): 535–558. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2015 Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomioka, Satoshi, and Yaping Tsai
2005 “Domain restrictions for distributive quantification in Mandarin Chinese.” Journal of East Asian Linguistics 14 (2): 89–120. DOI logoGoogle 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
Walker, Gareth
2010 “The phonetic constitution of a turn-holding practice.” Prosody in interaction 231: 51. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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