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

The invitation game

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

| University of Southern Denmark
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 (1967, 1974) 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.
Keywords: invitations, ambiguity, Tinder chats, gender, facework, framing, play
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
Published online: 4 June 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00111.and
References (43)
References
Al Rashdi, Fathiya. 2018. “Functions of emojis in WhatsApp interaction among Omanis.” Discourse, Context &Media 261: 117–126. DOI logoGoogle 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
. 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
Bella, Spyridoula. 2009. “Invitations and politeness in Greek: The age variable.” Journal of Politeness Research 5(2): 243–271. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Steven Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, Michael R. 1989. “Reactions to heterosexual opening gambits: Female selectivity and male responsiveness.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 15(1): 27–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danesi, Marcel. 2017. The Semiotics of Emoji: The Rise of Visual Language in the Age of the Internet. London: Bloomsbury. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul. 2018. “Equivocal invitations.” Journal of Pragmatics 1251: 62–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eslami, Zohreh R. 2005. “Invitations in Persian and English: Ostensible or genuine?” Intercultural Pragmatics 2(4): 453–480. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García, Carmen. 1999. “The three stages of Venezuelan invitations and responses.” Multilingua 18(4): 391–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glenn, Phillip J., and Mark L. Knapp. 1987. “The interactive framing of play in adult conversations.” Communication Quarterly 35(1): 48–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
. 1974. Frame Analysis. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
. 1978. “Response cries.” Language: 787–815. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Herbert P. 1975. “Logic and conversation.” In Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerry Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Isaacs, Ellen A., and Herbert H. Clark. 1990. “Ostensible invitations.” Language in Society 19(4): 493–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kallis, Rhiannon B. 2020. “Understanding the motivations for using Tinder.” Qualitative Research Reports in Communication 21(1): 66–73. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. 1996. “Finding ‘face’ in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly 59(4): 303–321. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Márquez Reiter, Rosina, and David M. Frohlich. 2020. “A pragmatics of intimacy.” Internet Pragmatics 3(1): 1–33. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1988. “Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy.” Communications Monographs 55(4): 360–373. DOI logoGoogle 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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rüdiger, Sofia, and Daria Dayter. 2020. “Manbragging online: Self-praise on pick-up artists’ forums.” Journal of Pragmatics 1611: 16–27. DOI logoGoogle 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
2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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
Speer, Susan A. 2017. “Flirting: A designedly ambiguous action?” Research on Language and Social Interaction 50(2): 128–150. DOI logoGoogle 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
. 2009. “Framing and face: The relevance of the presentation of self to linguistic discourse analysis.” Social Psychology Quarterly 72(4): 300–305. DOI logoGoogle 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
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
Thompson, Riki. 2022. “More than the selfie: Online dating, non-monogamy, normativity, and linked profiles on OkCupid.” Journal of Language and Sexuality 11(1): 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolfson, Nessa. 1989. Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar