Cover not available
Article published In:
Approaches to grammar for interactional linguistics
Edited by Ritva Laury, Marja Etelämäki and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
[Pragmatics 24:3] 2014
► pp. 649–672

A multimodal analysis of compliment sequences in everyday English interactions

This study offers a multimodal analysis of turns in everyday English interactions that are used for making compliments, i.e. for positively evaluating the appearance, personal qualities or actions of (a) co-present participant(s) in the present situation. We first identify the most frequent linguistic formats recurrently occurring in compliments in our data. We then focus on the sequential interactional analysis of compliment sequences, i.e. the production of the compliment and the response it receives. While a range of bodily-visual displays and prosodic features can be identified as co-constructing compliment activity, we argue that gaze direction has a specific role in the production of both compliments and their responses. The data come from a database of approximately 8 hours of video–recorded casual face-to-face conversations in English. The study employs the methodology of conversation analysis, maintaining that social interaction in face-to-face conversations is a multimodal achievement, where participants’ use of language, embodied actions and material objects are variously combined to build coherent courses of action (Goodwin 2000). The aim of the study is to provide a description of how embodied actions enter into the design of social action formats for compliments.
Keywords: Language in use, Evaluation, Social action format, Embodied actions, Conversation analysis, Compliments
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 1 September 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.09kei
References (40)
Bavelas, J.B., L. Coates, and T. Johnson (2002) Listener responses as a collaborative process: The role of gaze. Journal of Communication 521: 566-580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (2012) On affectivity and preference in responses to rejection. In E. Kärkkäinen, and J. Du Bois (eds.), Stance, Affect, and Intersubjectivity in Interaction: Sequential and Dialogic Perspectives. Special issue of Text & Talk 32-4: 453-475.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Sandra Thompson (2005) A linguistic practice for retracting overstatements: ‘Concessive repair’. In A. Hakulinen, and M. Selting (eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 257-288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John, and Elise Kärkkäinen (2012) Taking a stance on emotion: Affect, sequence, and intersubjectivity in dialogic interaction. In E. Kärkkäinen, and J. Du Bois (eds.), Stance, Affect, and Intersubjectivity in Interaction: Sequential and Dialogic Perspectives. Special issue of Text & Talk 32-4: 433-451.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John, Stephan Schuetze-Coburn, Susanna Cumming, and Danae Paolino (1993) An outline of discourse transcription. In J.A. Edwards, and M.D. Lampert (eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 45-87.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. (2000) Micro-syntax in conversation. Paper presented at Interactional Linguistics Conference, Spa, Belgium, September 2000.
. (2007) Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies 9.3: 299-318. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Golato, Andrea (2002) German compliment responses. Journal of Pragmatics 341: 547-571. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles (2000) Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 321: 1489-1522. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie Harness Goodwin (1987) Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPrA Papers in Pragmatics 1.1: 1-54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1992) Assessment and the construction of context. In A. Duranti, and C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking context. Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 147-190.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Haddington, Pentti (2006) The organization of gaze and assessments as resources for stance taking. Text &Talk 26.3: 281-328. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto (2003) Joint utterance construction in Japanese converstion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John (2002) Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In C. Ford, B.A. Fox, and S. Thompson (eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.196-224.Google Scholar
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond (2005) The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly 68.1: 15-38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, Ian, and Robin Wooffitt (2008) Conversation Analysis, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Keisanen, Tiina (2012) “Uh-oh, we were going there”: Environmentally occasioned noticings of trouble in in-car interaction. Semiotica 191.1/4: 199-224.Google Scholar
Keisanen, Tiina, and Elise Kärkkäinen (2014) Stance. In Klaus P. Schneider, and Anne Barron (eds.), Pragmatics of Discourse. Handbook of Pragmatics [HOPS]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 295-322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise, and Tiina Keisanen (2012) Linguistic and embodied formats for making (concrete) offers. Discourse Studies 14.5: 1-25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Anna, and Lorenza Mondada (2009) Assessments in social interaction: Introduction to the special issue. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42.4: 299-308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Local, John (2004) Getting back to prior talk: And-uh(m) as a back-connecting device. In E. Couper-Kuhlen, and C. Ford (eds.), Sound patterns in interaction: Cross-linguistic studies of phonetics and prosody for conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 377-400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manes, Joan, and Nessa Wolfson (1981) The compliment formula. In F. Coulmas (ed.), Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. The Hague: Mouton Publishers, pp. 115-132.Google Scholar
Nevile, Maurice (2004) Beyond the black box. Talk-in-Interaction in the Airline Cockpit. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
McClave, Evelyn (2000) Linguistic functions of head movements in the context of speech. Journal of Pragmatics 321: 855-878. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza (2009) The embodied and negotiated production of assessments in instructed actions. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42.4: 329-361. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita (1978) Compliment responses. Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In J. Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York: Academic Press, pp. 79-112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In M. Atkinson, and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 57-101.Google Scholar
(1986) Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies 91: 219-229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rauniomaa Mirka, and Tiina Keisanen (2012) Two multimodal formats for responding to requests. Journal of Pragmatics 44.6–7: 829-842. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossano, Federico (2013) Gaze in conversation. In J. Sidnell, and T. Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 308-329.Google Scholar
Ruusuvuori Johanna, and Anssi Peräkylä (2009) Facial and verbal expressions in assessing stories and topics. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42.4: 377-394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel (1986) On some gestures’ relation to talk. In J.M. Atkinson, and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 266-296.Google Scholar
(2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Scheibman, Joanne (2001) Local patterns of subjectivity in person and verb type in American English conversation. In J. Bybee, and P. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 61-89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah (1987) Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Shaw, Rebecca, and Celia Kitzinger (2012) Compliments on a home birth helpline. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45.3: 213-244. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (1989) Vuoronalkuiset konnektorit: Mutta . [Turn-initial connectors: But ]. In A. Hakulinen (ed.), Suomalaisen keskustelun keinoja I. Kieli 4. Helsinki: Finnish Department, University of Helsinki, pp. 162-176.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Frederico Rossano (2010) Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43.1: 3-31. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen, Charles Goodwin, and Curtis LeBaron (2011) Embodied interaction in the material world. An introduction. In J. Streeck, C. Goodwin, and C. LeBaron (eds.), Embodied Interaction. Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-26.Google Scholar
Wagner, Johannes, and Rod Gardner (2004) Introduction. In R. Gardner, and J. Wagner (eds.), Second Language Conversations. London: Continuum, pp. 1-17.Google Scholar
Cited by (11)

Cited by 11 other publications

Suzuki, Ryoko
2022. Creativity in compliment responses in Japanese everyday talk. East Asian Pragmatics 7:3 ► pp. 365 ff. DOI logo
Dendenne, Boudjemaa
2021. Complimenting on-the-go: Features from colloquial Algerian Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics 172 ► pp. 270 ff. DOI logo
Weiste, Elina, Camilla Lindholm, Taina Valkeapää & Melisa Stevanovic
2021. Interactional use of compliments in mental health rehabilitation. Journal of Pragmatics 177 ► pp. 224 ff. DOI logo
Hofstetter, Emily & Leelo Keevallik
2020. Embodied interaction. In Handbook of Pragmatics [Handbook of Pragmatics, ], ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo
Tao, Hongyin
2020. Chapter 4. Formulaicity without expressed multiword units. In Fixed Expressions [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 315], ► pp. 71 ff. DOI logo
Sokol, Robin
2019.  Do we X, Should/Shall we X, Let’s X . Interaction Studies. Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems 20:2 ► pp. 339 ff. DOI logo
Keevallik, Leelo
2018. What Does Embodied Interaction Tell Us About Grammar?. Research on Language and Social Interaction 51:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Kärkkäinen, Elise & Sandra A. Thompson
2018. Language and bodily resources: ‘Response packages’ in response to polar questions in English. Journal of Pragmatics 123 ► pp. 220 ff. DOI logo
Sifianou, Maria & Garcés-Conejos Blitvich
2017. (Im)politeness and Cultural Variation. In The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, ► pp. 571 ff. DOI logo
Schoonjans, Steven, Paul Sambre, Geert Brône & Kurt Feyaerts
2016. Vers une analyse multimodale du sens. Perspectives constructionnelles sur la gestualité co-grammaticale. Langages N° 201:1 ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2018. Compliments and Positive Assessments [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 289], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 september 2024. 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.