2.3.2 Advising as a problem-solving activity
In institutional interactions, advising (or advice-giving) is often considered as a problem-solving activity (Heritage & Sefi, 1992; Hutchby, 1995;Leppänen, 1998; Pudlinski, 2005; Vehviläinen, 2001, 2009). Vehviläinen (2009,p. 163) argues that
Advice — a suggestion, recommendation, or a directive for the recipient to follow — is based on and deals with the recipient’s problem, either indicated or implied. The adviser provides, or works towards, a solution to the advisee’s problem.
By treating advising as a problem-solving activity, it has been examined in a wider context and the advising sequences become a focus, rather than head acts of advising. For example, Waring (2006), after examining the advising sequence in graduate peer tutoring, finds that four components often emerge within an advising sequence: identify the problem, propose a solution,model revisions and offer accounts. In the advice-giving interaction between the health visitors and the first-time mothers, the “step-by-step” procedure is found to be as follows (Heritage & Sefi, 1992, p. 379):
Step 1: HV: initial inquiry.
Step 2: M: problem-indicative response.
Step 3: HV: focusing inquiry into the problem.
Step 4: M: responsive detailing.
Step 5: HV: advice giving.
Moreover, in an advising sequence, other pragmatic acts may be included as Locher and Hoffmann (2006, pp. 70-71) point out:
Advice is also closely linked to the speech act type of assessments and judgments. However, advice-giving contains an additional element: a future action is recommended by the advice-giver. It is combination of assessing, judging and directing that characterizes advice-giving.
This indicates that the other pragmatic acts may be the pre-sequence or post-sequence in an advising sequence.
In institutional interactions, the exploration of advising has covered several communicative settings such as medical interaction (Heritage &Sefi,1992; Heritage & Lindström, 2012; Leppänen, 1998; Silverman, 1997),radio call-in programme interaction (DeCapua & Dunham, 1993), educational setting (Vehviläinen, 2001, 2009, 2012; Waring, 2012) and online community interaction (Harrison & Barlow, 2009; Kouper, 2010). The present study is also relevant to the educational setting.