1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Interactional Linguistics
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Accountability and type-fittedness as indicators of conditional relevance in interaction
PDF
EPUB

Abstract

Abstract

In this paper, we analyze sequences of proposals for joint future action in German conversations, with the aim of capturing participants’ orientations towards conditional relevance (CR). We establish a data-driven operationalization of CR on the basis of different design-features of the proposals such as interrogativity, modal verbs (), modal particles, and inbreath as well as by including contextual features, such as repetition of the proposal and gaze towards recipient(s). The responses to the proposals are categorized in terms of their type-fittedness related to approval/rejection. Our analysis confirms the view of CR as a scalar variable in proposal sequences. We show that the integration of accountability of proposal design and type-fittedness of responses is well suited to explaining variation in interlocutors’ orientations towards conditional relevance in addition to relating response mobilizing features to the presence or absence of a response.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/il.24016.gro
2025-06-12
2025-07-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/il.24016.gro
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/10.1075/il.24016.gro/il.24016.gro.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/il.24016.gro&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Andersen, E. B.
    (1982) Latent Structure Analysis: A survey. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, (), –. www.jstor.org/stable/4615848
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Asmuß, B., & Oshima, S.
    (2012) Negotiation of entitlement in proposal sequences. Discourse Studies, (), –. 10.1177/1461445611427215
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611427215 [Google Scholar]
  3. Ayaß, R.
    (2021) Projektive Gattungen. Die kommunikative Verfertigung von Zukunft. InB. Weidner, K. König, W. Imo, & L. Wegner (Eds.), Verfestigungen in der Interaktion: Konstruktionen, sequenzielle Muster, kommunikative Gattungen (pp. –). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110637502‑004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110637502-004 [Google Scholar]
  4. Birkner, K., Auer, P., Bauer, A., & Kotthoff, H.
    (Eds.) (2020) Einführung in die Konversationsanalyse. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. 10.5209/rfal.78415
     https://doi.org/10.5209/rfal.78415 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bolden, G. B.
    (2003) Multiple modalities in collaborative turn sequences. Gesture, (), –. 10.1075/gest.3.2.04bol
     https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.3.2.04bol [Google Scholar]
  6. Bolden, G. B., Mandelbaum, J., & Wilkinson, S.
    (2012) Pursuing a response by repairing an indexical reference. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (), –. 10.1080/08351813.2012.673380
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.673380 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bottema-Beutel, K., Louick, R., & White, R.
    (2015) Repetition, response mobilization, and face: Analysis of group interactions with a 19-year-old with Asperger syndrome. Journal of Communication Disorders, , –. 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2015.05.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2015.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bybee, J. L.
    (2006) From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition. Language, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2014) What does grammar tell us about action?Pragmatics, (), –. 10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou [Google Scholar]
  10. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M.
    (2018) Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Deppermann, A.
    (2021) Imperative im Deutschen: Konstruktionen, Praktiken oder social action formats?InW. Beate, K. Katharina, I. Wolfgang, & W. Lars (Eds.), Verfestigungen in der Interaktion (pp. –). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110637502‑009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110637502-009 [Google Scholar]
  12. Deppermann, A., & Gubina, A.
    (2021) Positionally-sensitive action-ascription. Interactional Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/il.21005.dep
     https://doi.org/10.1075/il.21005.dep [Google Scholar]
  13. Dix, C.
    (2023) Transcribing facial gestures. Combining Jefferson with the International SignWriting Alphabet (ISWA). Facial Gestures in Interaction (Special Issue on Facial Gestures in Interaction, edited byAlexandra Groß & Carolin Dix), (), https://tidsskrift.dk/socialinteraction/article/view/143071
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Drake, V.
    (2016) German questions and turn-final oder. Gesprächsforschung — Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. El-Den, S., Schneider, C., Mirzaei, A., & Carter, S.
    (2020) How to measure a latent construct: Psychometric principles for the development and validation of measurement instruments. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice, (), –. 10.1111/ijpp.12600
     https://doi.org/10.1111/ijpp.12600 [Google Scholar]
  16. Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., & De Ruiter, J. P.
    (2012) Epistemic dimensions of polar questions: sentence-final particles in comparative perspective. InJ. De Ruiter (Ed.), Questions (pp. –). West Nyack, NY: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Golato, A., & Betz, E.
    (2008) German ach and achso in repair uptake: Resources to sustain or remove epistemic asymmetry. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, (), –. 10.1515/zfsw.2008.002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsw.2008.002 [Google Scholar]
  18. Groß, A.
    (2018) Arzt/Patient-Gespräche in der HIV-Ambulanz. Facetten einer chronischen Gesprächsbeziehung. Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Gubina, A.
    (2022) Grammatik des Handelns in der sozialen Interaktion: Eine interaktionslinguistische, multimodale Untersuchung der Handlungskonstitution und -Zuschreibung mit Modalverbformaten im gesprochenen Deutsch. Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Gubina, A., Deppermann, A., Fox, B. A., Raymond, C. W., & Thompson, S. A.
    (submitted). CA without the next-turn proof-procedure? Action categorization in trouble accounts. Research on Language and Social Interaction. (Special Issue “Action categorization in Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics: Challenges and perspectives.”)
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Günthner, S., & Imo, W.
    (Eds.) (2006) Konstruktionen in der Interaktion. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Hagenaars, J. A., & McCutcheon, A. L.
    (2002) Applied Latent Class Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Haspelmath, M.
    (2002) Grammatikalisierung: von der Performanz zur Kompetenz ohne angeborene Grammatik. InS. Krämer & E. König (Eds.), Gibt es eine Sprache hinter dem Sprechen? (pp. –). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Heritage, J.
    (1984) A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. InJ. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. –). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. (2012) Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (), –. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  26. Heritage, J., & Clayman, S.
    (2024) Making arrangements: A sketch of a ‘big package’. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (), –. 10.1080/08351813.2024.2369483
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2024.2369483 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hoffmann, L.
    (2008) Über ja. Deutsche Sprache(). 10.37307/j.1868‑775x.2008.03.02
     https://doi.org/10.37307/j.1868-775x.2008.03.02 [Google Scholar]
  28. Holmberg, A.
    (2015) Verb second. InT. Kiss & A. Alexiadou (Eds.), Syntax. Theory and Analysis. Volume 1 (pp. –). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Houtkoop-Steenstra, H.
    (1990) Accounting for proposals. Journal of Pragmatics, (), –. 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90066‑M
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90066-M [Google Scholar]
  30. Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R.
    (1998) Conversation Analysis. Principles, Practices and Applications. Cambridge: Polity.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. IDS
    IDS (2024) Datenbank für Gesprochenes Deutsch (DGD), FOLK. In. [dgd.ids-mannheim.de, last access: February 26, 2024].
  32. Imo, W.
    (Ed.) (2013) Sprache in Interaktion. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110306323
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110306323 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kendrick, K. H., & Torreira, F.
    (2015) The timing and construction of preference: A quantitative study. Discourse Processes, (), –. 10.1080/0163853X.2014.955997
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.955997 [Google Scholar]
  34. Koshik, I.
    (2002) Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (), –. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3503_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3503_2 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lazarsfeld, P.
    (1950) The logical and mathematical foundation of Latent Structure Analysis. InS. A. Stouffer, L. Guttman, E. A. Suchmann, P. Lazarsfeld, S. A. Star, & J. A. Clausen (Eds.), Measurement and Prediction (pp. –). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Lazarsfeld, P., & Henry, N.
    (1969) Latent Structure Analysis. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Lerner, G. H.
    (1991) On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society, (), –. www.jstor.org/stable/4168265
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Lindström, A.
    (2017) Accepting remote proposals. InG. H. Lerner, G. Raymond, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Enabling Human Conduct. Studies of talk-in-interaction in honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff (pp. –). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.273.07lin
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.273.07lin [Google Scholar]
  39. Linzer, D. A., & Lewis, J. B.
    (2011) poLCA: An R package for polytomous variable Latent Class Analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, (), — . 10.18637/jss.v042.i10
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v042.i10 [Google Scholar]
  40. Métrich, R., & Faucher, E.
    (2009) Wörterbuch deutscher Partikeln. Unter Berücksichtigung ihrer französischen Äquivalente. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Mondada, L.
    (2018) Multiple temporalities of language and body in Interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (), –. 10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878 [Google Scholar]
  42. Mostovaia, I.
    (2019) Sollen wir uns mal treffen? — Nein… Wir müssen:D Deutsche Modalverben in Verabredungen per SMS und WhatsApp. InW. Imo & J. Wesche (Eds.), Brückenschläge (pp. –). Heidelberg: Winter.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Nomikou, I., Rohlfing, K. J., & Szufnarowska, J.
    (2013) Educating attention: Recruiting, maintaining, and framing eye contact in early natural mother-infant interactions. Interaction Studies: Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems, (), –. 10.1075/is.14.2.05nom
     https://doi.org/10.1075/is.14.2.05nom [Google Scholar]
  44. Nylund-Gibson, K., & Choi, A. Y.
    (2018) Ten frequently asked questions about Latent Class Analysis. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, , –. 10.1037/tps0000176
     https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000176 [Google Scholar]
  45. Pomerantz, A.
    (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. InJ. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. –). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. R Development Core Team
    R Development Core Team (2024) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. In: Last accessedMarch 5, 2024. www.R-project.org
  47. Robinson, J. D.
    (2016) Accountability in Social Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Robinson, J. D., & Kevoe-Feldman, H.
    (2016) The accountability of proposing (vs. soliciting proposals of) arrangements. InJ. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in Social Interaction (pp. –). Oxford: Oxford Academic. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210557.003.0009
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210557.003.0009 [Google Scholar]
  49. Rosemeyer, M.
    (2024) Data-driven identification of situated meanings in corpus data using Latent Class Analysis. Open Linguistics, (). 10.1515/opli‑2024‑0029
     https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2024-0029 [Google Scholar]
  50. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1968) Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. (1996) Turn organization: one intersection of grammar and interaction. InE. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. –). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction. A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Vol I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H.
    (1973) Opening up Closings. Semiotica, , –. 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
     https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  54. Selting, M.
    (1995) Prosodie im Gespräch. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110934717
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110934717 [Google Scholar]
  55. (2016) Praktiken des Sprechens und Interagierens im Gespräch aus der Sicht von Konversationsanalyse und Interaktionaler Linguistik. In: Deppermann, A., Feilke, H., & Linke, A. (eds.): Sprachliche und kommunikative Praktiken. De Gruyter, (Jahrbuch des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache 2015), –. 10.1515/9783110451542‑003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110451542-003 [Google Scholar]
  56. Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K., Couper-Kuhlen, E., Deppermann, A., Gilles, P., Günthner, S., Hartung, M., Kern, F., Mertzlufft, C., Meyer, C., Morek, M., Oberzaucher, F., Peters, J., Quasthoff, U., Schütte, W., … Uhmann, S.
    (2009) Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung — Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Stevanovic, M., & Peräkylä, A.
    (2012) Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (), –. 10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260 [Google Scholar]
  58. Stivers, T.
    (2018) How we manage social relationships through answers to questions: The case of interjections. Discourse Processes, (), –. 10.1080/0163853x.2018.1441214
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853x.2018.1441214 [Google Scholar]
  59. (Ed.) (2022) The Book of Answers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780197563892.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197563892.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  60. Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. D.
    (2006) A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, (), –. 10.1017/s0047404506060179
     https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404506060179 [Google Scholar]
  61. Stivers, T., & Rossano, F.
    (2010) Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. (2012) Mobilising response in interaction: a compositional view of questions. InJ. De Ruiter (Ed.), Questions — Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives. (pp. –). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/cbo9781139045414.005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139045414.005 [Google Scholar]
  63. Stivers, T., & Sidnell, J.
    (2016) Proposals for activity collaboration. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (), –. 10.1080/08351813.2016.1164409
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1164409 [Google Scholar]
  64. Tannen, D.
    (1987) Repetition in discourse: towards a poetics of talk. Language, –.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Raymond, Ch. W.
    (2021) The grammar of proposals for joint activities. Interactional Linguistics:pp.–.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Thurmair, M.
    (1989) Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Turowetz, J.
    (2023) Conditional relevance. InA. Gubina, M. Hoey, & C. W. Raymond (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). 10.17605/OSF.IO/YF56T
     https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YF56T [Google Scholar]
  68. Venables, W., & Ripley, B.
    (2002) Modern Applied Statistics with S (4th ed.). Dordrecht: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Winkworth, A. L., Davis, P. J., Adams, R. D., & Ellis, E.
    (1995) Breathing patterns during spontaneous speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, (), –. 10.1044/jshr.3801.124
     https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3801.124 [Google Scholar]
  70. Wlodarczak, M., & Heldner, M.
    (2020) Breathing in conversation [Original Research]. Frontiers in Psychology, . 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.575566
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.575566 [Google Scholar]
  71. Zifonun, G., Hoffmann, L., & Strecker, B.
    (1997) Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Zinken, J., & Deppermann, A.
    (2017) A cline of visible commitment in the situated design of imperative turns. Evidence from German and Polish. InM.-L. Sorjonen, L. Raevaara, & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Imperative Turns at Talk. The design of directives in action (pp. –). Amsterdam, New York: John Benjamins.10.1075/slsi.30.02zin
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.30.02zin [Google Scholar]
  73. 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, , –. 10.1080/08351813.2013.810409
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2013.810409 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/il.24016.gro
Loading
Accountability and type-fittedness as indicators of conditional relevance in interaction
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/il.24016.gro
/content/journals/10.1075/il.24016.gro
/content/journals/10.1075/il.24016.gro
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: response mobilization ; accountability, modal verbs ; interrogatives, action formation ; conditional relevance

Most Cited

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