1887
Volume 1, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2666-4224
  • E-ISSN: 2666-4232

Abstract

Abstract

The action of proposing has been studied from various perspectives in research on talk-in-interaction, both in mundane as well as in institutional talk. Aiming to exemplify Interactional Linguistics as a drawing together of insights from Linguistics and Conversation Analysis, we explore the grammar of proposals and the stances displayed by participants in making proposals in the context of joint activities, where a future or hypothetical activity is being put forth as something the speaker and recipient(s) might do together. Close examination of interactions among American English-speaking adults reveals four recurrent grammatical formats for issuing proposals: , Modal Declaratives, and Modal Interrogatives. We argue that these four formats for doing proposing within a joint activity are used in socially distinct environments, contributing to a growing understanding of the fit between entrenched linguistic patterns and the social work they have evolved to do.

This work was made publicly available by the publisher.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/il.20011.tho
2021-05-06
2021-10-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/il.20011.tho.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/il.20011.tho&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Aikhenvald, A. Y.
    (2010) Imperatives and commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alcázar, A. & Saltarelli, M.
    (2014) The syntax of imperatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Asmuß, B. & Oshima, S.
    (2012) Negotiation of entitlement in proposal sequences. Discourse Studies14(1):67–86. 10.1177/1461445611427215
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611427215 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barnes, R.
    (2007) Formulations and the facilitation of common agreement in meetings talk. Text & Talk27(3):273–296. 10.1515/TEXT.2007.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2007.011 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bolden, G. B. & Robinson, J. D.
    (2011) Soliciting accounts with why-interrogatives in conversation. Journal of Communication61(1):94–119. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2010.01528.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01528.x [Google Scholar]
  6. Bybee, J. L.
    (2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  7. Clayman, S. E. & Heritage, J.
    (2014) Benefactors and beneficiaries: benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. InE. Couper-Kuhlen & P. Drew (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction, (55–86). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.26.03cla
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26.03cla [Google Scholar]
  8. Clift, R. & Raymond, C. W.
    (2018) Actions in practice: On details in collections. Discourse Studies, 20(1):90–119. 10.1177/1461445617734344
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617734344 [Google Scholar]
  9. Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2014) What does grammar tell us about action?Pragmatics24(3),623–647. 10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou [Google Scholar]
  10. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Thompson, S. A.
    (Frthc.). Action ascription in everyday advice-giving sequences. InA. Depperman & M. Haugh Eds. Action ascription: interaction in context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Curl, T. S.
    (2006) Offers of assistance: constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics, 38:1257–1280. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  12. Curl, T. S. & Drew, P.
    (2008) Contingency and action: a comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction41(2):1–25. 10.1080/08351810802028613
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802028613 [Google Scholar]
  13. Davies, E.
    (1979) On the semantics of syntax: mood and condition in English. London: Croom-Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Du Bois, I.
    (2012) Grammatical, pragmatic and sociolinguistic aspects of the first person plural pronoun. InN. Baumgarten, I. Du Bois, & J. House (Eds.). Subjectivity in language and in discourse (319–338). Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Floyd, S., Rossi, G., & Enfield, N. J.
    (Eds) (2020) Getting others to do things, A pragmatic typology of recruitments. Berlin: Language Sciences Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fox, B. A. & Heinemann, T.
    (2016) Rethinking format, an examination of requests. Language in Society45(4):499–531. 10.1017/S0047404516000385
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404516000385 [Google Scholar]
  17. Goodwin, M. H.
    (1990) He-said-she-said: talk as social organization among black children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Haiman, J.
    (1998) Talk is cheap, sarcasm, alienation, and the evolution of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Heritage, J.
    (1984a) A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. InJ. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (1984b) Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Heritage, J. & Raymond, C. W.
    (2021) Preference and polarity: Epistemic stance in question design. Research on Language and Social Interaction54.1: 39–59. 10.1080/08351813.2020.1864155
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1864155 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hoey, E.
    (2020) Self-authorizing action: On let me X in English social interaction. Language in Society. 10.1017/S0047404520000779
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404520000779 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hoey, E. & C. W. Raymond
    . (Frthc.). Managing data in conversation analysis. InA. Berez-Kroeker, B. McDonnell, & E. Koller Eds. The open handbook of linguistic data management. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Holt, E.
    (1996) Reporting on talk: the use of direct reported speech in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction29(3):219–245. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2903_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2903_2 [Google Scholar]
  25. Houtkoop, H.
    (1987) Establishing agreement. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110849172
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110849172 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kendrick, K. H. & Drew, P.
    (2016) Recruitment, Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction49(1):1–19. 10.1080/08351813.2016.1126436
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1126436 [Google Scholar]
  27. Koshik, Irene
    2002 Designedly incomplete utterances: a pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction5.3: 277–309. 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3503_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3503_2 [Google Scholar]
  28. Küttner, U-A. & C. W. Raymond
    . (Frthc.). ‘I was gonna say…’: preliminary observations on the doubly reflexive character of a meta-communicative practice. LiLi, Studien zu Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Lindström, A.
    (2017) Accepting remote proposals. InG. Raymond, G. H. Lerner, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Enabling human conduct: studies of talk-in-interaction in honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff, (125–142). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.273.07lin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.273.07lin [Google Scholar]
  30. Raymond, C. W., Robinson, J. D., Fox, B. A., Thompson, S. A., & Montiegel, K.
    (2021) Modulating action through minimization: Syntax in the service of offering and requesting. Language in Society50.1: 53–91. 10.1017/S004740452000069X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740452000069X [Google Scholar]
  31. Robinson, J. D.
    (2016) Accountability in social interaction. InJ. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in social interaction (3–46). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210557.003.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210557.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2020) One type of polar, information-seeking question and its stance of probability: Implications for the preference for agreement. Research on Language and Social Interaction53(4), 425–442. 10.1080/08351813.2020.1826759
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1826759 [Google Scholar]
  33. Robinson, J. D. & Bolden, G. B.
    (2010) Preference organization of sequence-initiating actions: the case of explicit account solicitations. Discourse Studies12(4):501–533. 10.1177/1461445610371051
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610371051 [Google Scholar]
  34. Robinson, J. D. & Kevoe-Feldman, H.
    (2016) The accountability of proposing (vs. soliciting proposals of) arrangements. InJ. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in social interaction (264–293). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210557.003.0009
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210557.003.0009 [Google Scholar]
  35. Sacks, H.
    (1987[1973]) On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation. InG. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (54–69). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Sacks, H. & E. A. Schegloff
    (1979) Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons and their interaction. InG. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language, studies in Ethnomethodology (15–21). New York: Irvington Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Schegloff, E. A.
    (2007) Sequence organization in interaction: a primer in conversation analysis Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  38. Stevanovic, M.
    (2012) Establishing Joint Decisions in a Dyad. Discourse Studies14(6):779–803. 10.1177/1461445612456654
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612456654 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2013) Constructing a proposal as a thought: a way to manage problems in the initiation of joint decision-making in Finnish workplace interaction. Pragmatics23(3):519–544. 10.1075/prag.23.3.07ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.23.3.07ste [Google Scholar]
  40. Stevanovic, M. & Peräkylä, A.
    (2012) Deontic authority in interaction: the right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3):297–321. 10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260 [Google Scholar]
  41. Stevanovic, M., Valkeäpää, T., Waiste, E., & Lindholm, C.
    (2020) Joint decision making in a mental health rehabilitation community: the impact of support workers’ proposal design on client responsiveness. Counseling Psychology Quarterly. 10.1080/09515070.2020.1762166
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070.2020.1762166 [Google Scholar]
  42. Stivers, T.
    (2004) “No no no” and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research, 30(2):260–293. 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.2004.tb00733.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00733.x [Google Scholar]
  43. Stivers, T. & Sidnell, J.
    (2016) Proposals for activity collaboration. Research on Language and Social Interaction49(2):148–166. 10.1080/08351813.2016.1164409
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1164409 [Google Scholar]
  44. Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2015) Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139381154
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139381154 [Google Scholar]
  45. Tomasello, M.
    (2014) The ultra-social animal. European Journal of Social Psychology44(3):187–194. 10.1002/ejsp.2015
    https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2015 [Google Scholar]
  46. Wootton, A. J.
    (1997) Interaction and the development of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519895
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519895 [Google Scholar]
  47. Zinken, J. & Deppermann, A.
    (2017) A cline of visible commitment in the situated design of imperative turns. InM-L. Sorjonen, L. Raevaara & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Imperative turns at talk: the design of directives in action (27–64). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30.02zin
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.02zin [Google Scholar]
  48. Zinken, J. & Ogiermann, E.
    (2011) How to propose an action as objectively necessary: The case of Polish trzeba x (“One needs to x”). Research on Language and Social Interaction44(3):263–287. 10.1080/08351813.2011.591900
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2011.591900 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/il.20011.tho
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/il.20011.tho
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): (grammatical) format; deontic strength; grammar; joint activities; let’s; proposal
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error