1887
image of Positionally-sensitive action-ascription

Abstract

Abstract

has argued that grammars are “positionally-sensitive”, implying that the situated use and understanding of linguistic formats depends on their sequential position. Analyzing the German format (corresponding to English ) based on 82 instances from a large corpus of talk-in-interaction (FOLK), this paper shows how different action-ascriptions to turns using the same format depend on various orders of context. We show that not only sequential position, but also epistemic status, interactional histories, multimodal conduct, and linguistic devices co-occurring in the same turn are decisive for the action implemented by the format. The range of actions performed with and their close interpretive interrelationship suggest that they should not be viewed as a fixed inventory of context-dependent interpretations of the format. Rather, the format provides for a root-interpretation that can be adapted to local contextual contingencies, yielding situated action-ascriptions that depend on constraints created by contexts of use.

Available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/il.21005.dep
2021-11-15
2021-12-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/10.1075/il.21005.dep/il.21005.dep.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/il.21005.dep&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Antaki, C., & Kent, A.
    (2012) Telling people what to do (and, sometimes, why): contingency, entitlement and explanation in staff requests to adults with intellectual impairments. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 876–889. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.014 [Google Scholar]
  2. Auer, P.
    (1996) On the prosody and syntax of turn-continuations. InE. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation (pp.57–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511597862.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597862.004 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baldauf-Quilliatre, H., & Imo, W.
    (2020) pfff. InW. Imo & J. P. Lanwer (Eds.), Prosodie und Konstruktionsgrammatik (pp.201–232). Berlin: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Betz, E.
    (2015) Indexing epistemic access through different confirmation formats: uses of responsive (das) stimmt in German interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 87, 251–266. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.018 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bolinger, D. L.
    (1957) Interrogative structures of American English: the direct question. Publication of the American Dialect Society, No. 28. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Clark, H. H.
    (1979) Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Psychology, 11(4), 430–477. 10.1016/0010‑0285(79)90020‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(79)90020-3 [Google Scholar]
  7. Clayman, S. E., & Heritage, J.
    (2014) Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. InP. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction (pp.55–86). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.26.03cla
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26.03cla [Google Scholar]
  8. Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2014) What does grammar tell us about action?. Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–647. 10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou [Google Scholar]
  9. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M.
    (2018) Interactional linguistics: studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Craven, A., & Potter, J.
    (2010) Directives: entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, 12(4), 419–442. 10.1177/1461445610370126
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610370126 [Google Scholar]
  11. Curl, T., & Drew, P.
    (2008) Contingency and action: a comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41, 129–153. 10.1080/08351810802028613
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802028613 [Google Scholar]
  12. Deppermann, A., & Haugh, M.
    (2021) Action ascription in social interaction. InA. Deppermann & M. Haugh (Eds.), Action ascription in interaction (pp.3–27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Deppermann, A., & Schmidt, A.
    (2021) Micro-sequential coordination in early responses. In: Discourse Processes, 58(4), 372–396. 10.1080/0163853X.2020.1842630
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2020.1842630 [Google Scholar]
  14. Drew, P., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (Eds.) (2014) Requesting in social interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.26
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26 [Google Scholar]
  15. Ekman, P.
    (1979) About brows: emotional and conversational signals. InM. von Cranach, K. Foppa, W. Lepenies & D. Ploog (Eds.), Human ethology (169–249). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Ervin-Tripp, S.
    (1976) Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society, 5(1), 25–66. 10.1017/S0047404500006849
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006849 [Google Scholar]
  17. Ervin-Tripp, S., Strage, A., Lampert, M., & Bell, N.
    (1987) Understanding requests. Linguistics, 25(1), 107–143. 10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.107
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.1.107 [Google Scholar]
  18. Floyd, S., Rossi, G., & Enfield, N. J.
    (Eds.) (2020) Getting others to do things: a pragmatic typology of recruitments. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Fox, B. A.
    (2007) Principles shaping grammatical practices: an exploration. Discourse Studies, 9(3), 299–318. 10.1177/1461445607076201
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607076201 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2015) On the notion of pre-request. Discourse Studies, 17(1), 41–63. 10.1177/1461445614557762
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445614557762 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fox, B. A., & Heinemann, T.
    (2016) Rethinking format: an examination of requests. Language in Society, 45(4), 499–531. 10.1017/S0047404516000385
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404516000385 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2017) Issues in action formation: Requests and the problem with x. Open Linguistics, 3(1), 31–64. 10.1515/opli‑2017‑0003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2017-0003 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gibbs, R. W.
    (1983) Do people always process the literal meanings of indirect requests?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9(3), 524–533.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (1994) The poetics of mind: figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Goffman, E.
    (1971) Relations in public. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Gordon, D., & Lakoff, G.
    (1971) Conversational postulates. InProceedings of the 7th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp.63–84).
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Gubina, A.
    (2021a) Availability, grammar, and action formation: On simple and modal interrogative request formats in spoken German. In: Gesprächsforschung / Discourse and Conversation Analysis22, 272–303.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (2021b) Intersubjektivitatssicherung und Inferenzzuruckweisung: Funktionen der Responsivpartikel doch im gesprochenen Deutsch. Paper given at Arbeitstagung zur Gesprächsforschung, Mannheim, tagung.gespraechsforschung.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/heft2021.pdf
  29. Heritage, J.
    (2012) Epistemics in action: action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2021) The multiple accountabilities of action. InA. Deppermann & M. Haugh (Eds.), Action ascription in interaction (pp.297–328). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Heritage, J., & M.-L. Sorjonen
    (1994) Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: and-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society, 23(1), 1–29. 10.1017/S0047404500017656
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500017656 [Google Scholar]
  32. Koshik, I.
    (2003) Wh-questions used as challenges. Discourse Studies, 5(1), 51–77. 10.1177/14614456030050010301
    https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456030050010301 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kratzer, A.
    (2012) Modals and conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Levinson, S. C.
    (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2013) Action-formation and ascription. InJ. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp.103–130). Malden: Wiley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Mondada, L.
    (2018) Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85–106. 10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878 [Google Scholar]
  37. Parry, R.
    (2013) Giving reasons for doing something now or at some other time. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(2), 105–124, 10.1080/08351813.2012.754653
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.754653 [Google Scholar]
  38. Rauniomaa, M., & Keisanen, T.
    (2012) Two multimodal formats for responding to requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(6–7), 829–842. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.003 [Google Scholar]
  39. Raymond, G.
    (2013) At the intersection of turn and sequence organization: on the relevance of “slots” in type-conforming responses to polar interrogatives. InB. Szczepek Reed & G. Raymond (Eds.), Units of talk – units of action (pp.169–206). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.25.06ray
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.25.06ray [Google Scholar]
  40. Robinson, J.
    (2013) Epistemics, action formation, and other-initiation of repair: the case of partial questioning repeats. InM. Hayashi, G. Raymond & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp.261–292). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Rossi, G.
    (2015) The request system in Italian interaction (Ph.D. dissertation). Nijmegen: Radboud University.
  42. (2018) Composite social actions: the case of factual declaratives in everyday interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(4), 379–397. 10.1080/08351813.2018.1524562
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1524562 [Google Scholar]
  43. Rossi, G., & Zinken, J.
    (2016) Grammar and social agency: the pragmatics of impersonal deontic statements. Language, 92(4), e296–e325. 10.1353/lan.2016.0083
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0083 [Google Scholar]
  44. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1984) On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. InJ. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp.266–298). Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. (1988) Presequences and indirection: applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(1), 55–62. 10.1016/0378‑2166(88)90019‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90019-7 [Google Scholar]
  46. (1993) Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(1), 99–128. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2601_5
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2601_5 [Google Scholar]
  47. (1996) Turn organization: one intersection of grammar and interaction. InE. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp.52–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2007) Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  49. Schmidt, T.
    (2016) Good practices in the compilation of FOLK, the Research and Teaching Corpus of Spoken German. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 21(3), 396–418. 10.1075/ijcl.21.3.05sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.21.3.05sch [Google Scholar]
  50. Searle, J. R., & Vanderveken, D.
    (1985) Speech acts and illocutionary logic. InD. Vanderveken (Ed.), Logic, thought and action (pp.109–132). Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/1‑4020‑3167‑X_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3167-X_5 [Google Scholar]
  51. Searle, J. R.
    (1969) Speech acts: an essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  52. (1975) Indirect speech acts. InP. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp.261–286). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K.
    (2011) A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. Translated and adapted for English by E. Couper-Kuhlen and D. Barth-Weingarten. Gesprächsforschung / Discourse and Conversation Analysis12, 1–51.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T.
    (Eds.) (2013) The handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M.
    (1975) Towards an analysis of discourse: the English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Sorjonen, M. L., Raevaara, L., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (Eds.) (2017) Imperative turns at talk: the design of directives in action. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.30
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30 [Google Scholar]
  57. Steensig, J., & Heinemann, T.
    (2013) When “yes” is not enough – as an answer to a yes/no question. InB. Szczepek Reed & G. Raymond (Eds.), Units of talk – units of action (pp.207–242). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slsi.25.07ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.25.07ste [Google Scholar]
  58. 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]
  59. 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]
  60. Stivers, T., & Hayashi, M.
    (2010) Transformative answers: one way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society, 39(1), 1–25. 10.1017/S0047404509990637
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404509990637 [Google Scholar]
  61. Stivers, T., & Rossano, F.
    (2010) Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31. 10.1080/08351810903471258
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258 [Google Scholar]
  62. Stivers, T., Rossi, G., & Chalfoun, A.
    (submitted). Ambiguities in action ascription. Social Forces.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 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]
  64. Thornburg, L., & Panther, K.
    (1997) Speech act metonymies. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, 4, 205–222. 10.1075/cilt.151.14tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.151.14tho [Google Scholar]
  65. Wootton, A. J.
    (2005) Interactional and sequential configurations informing request format selection in children’s speech. InA. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation: studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction (pp.185–207). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/sidag.17.10woo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.17.10woo [Google Scholar]
  66. Zinken, J.
    (2015) Contingent control over shared goods. ‘Can I have x’ requests in British English informal interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 82, 23–38. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.03.005 [Google Scholar]
  67. (2016) Requesting responsibility. The morality of grammar in Polish and English family interaction. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210724.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210724.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  68. Zinken, J., & Ogiermann, E.
    (2013) Responsibility and action: invariants and diversity in requests for objects in British English and Polish interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(3), 256–276. 10.1080/08351813.2013.810409
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2013.810409 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/il.21005.dep
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/il.21005.dep
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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