Volume 20, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1572-0373
  • E-ISSN: 1572-0381
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This article studies the formats and in order to deepen our understanding of face-to-face collaborative interactions at the computer. We use 6 hours of data of university students collaborating in British and American English, and our methodology is Conversation Analysis. We demonstrate that the participants display and orient to the immediacy/remoteness of the task, as well as their entitlement to carry out the proposed task, when they put forward a proposed action. To do so, they use specific formats, specific verbs, and display specific tasks depending on their needs, emerging from the unfolding of the collaboration. We argue that collaboration is not only a matter of organising the accomplishment of a set of tasks, but also of displaying what kind of task is being proposed, and to what extent the speaker is entitled to the proposed task.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Asmuβ, 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]
  2. Barron, B.
    (2000) Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9:4403–436. 10.1207/S15327809JLS0904_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS0904_2 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bentley, R.; Hughes, J. A.; Randall, D.; Rodden, T.; Sawyer, P.; Shapiro, D. Z. & Sommerville, I.
    (1992) Ethnographically-informed systems design for air traffic control. CSCW ’92: Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work. (pp.123–129). New York: ACM. doi:  10.1145/143457.143470
    https://doi.org/10.1145/143457.143470 [Google Scholar]
  4. Charles, C., Gafni, A. & Whelan, T.
    (1997) Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (Or it takes at least two to tango). Social Science & Medicine44: 681–692. 10.1016/S0277‑9536(96)00221‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00221-3 [Google Scholar]
  5. Couper-Kuhlen, E.
    (2014) What does grammar tell us about action?Pragmatics, Special issue on “Approaches to grammar for Interactional Linguistics”, edited byRitva Laury, Marja Etelämäki & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, pp.623–648. 10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou [Google Scholar]
  6. Craven, A. and Potter, J.
    (2010) Directives: entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, 12 (4), pp.419–442. 10.1177/1461445610370126
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610370126 [Google Scholar]
  7. Curl, T.
    (2006) Offers of assistance: constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics38, 1257–1280. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  8. Curl, T. & Drew, P.
    (2008) Contingency and Action: A Comparison of Two Forms of Requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41:2, 129–153, doi:  10.1080/08351810802028613
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802028613 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dourish, P. & Bellotti, V.
    (1992) Awareness and coordination in shared workplaces. CSCW ’92, Proceedings of the 1992 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. ACM New-York. doi:  10.1145/143457.143468
    https://doi.org/10.1145/143457.143468 [Google Scholar]
  10. Du Bois, J. W.; Schuetze-Coburn, S.; Cumming, S. & Paolino, D.
    (1993) Outline of discourse transcription. J. A. Edwards & Lampert, M. D. (eds.), Talking data, Transcription and coding in discourse research. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp.45–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Ford, C., Fox, B. & Thompson, S.
    (2003) Social interaction and grammar. In: Tomasello, M. (Ed.), The New Psychology of Language, Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp.119–144.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fox, Barbara A.
    (2007) Principles Shaping grammatical practices: an exploration. Discourse Studies, 9:299. 10.1177/1461445607076201
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607076201 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fox, B. & Heinemann, T.
    (2016) Rethinking format: an examination of requests. Language in Society45, 499–531. 10.1017/S0047404516000385
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404516000385 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gardner, R. & Levy, M.
    (2012) Liminality in multitasking: Where talk and task collide in computer collaborations. Language is Society, Vol.41, issue5, pp.557–587. Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/S0047404512000656
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404512000656 [Google Scholar]
  15. Goodwin, M. H.
    (2006) Participation, Affect, and Trajectory in Family Directive/Response Sequences”, Text & Talk, vol.26, no.4–5, pp.515–543. 10.1515/TEXT.2006.021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.021 [Google Scholar]
  16. Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. H.
    (1992) Assessment and the construction of context. In: Duranti, A., Goodwin, C. (Eds.), Rethinking Context, Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.147–190.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Harper, R. R., Hughes, J. A. & Shapiro, D. Z.
    (1989) Working in harmony: An examination of computer technology in air traffic control, inP. Wilson, (eds.): ECSCW’89: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 13–15September 1989, Gatwick, London. London, pp.73–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Heap, James L.
    (1992) Normative order in collaborative editing. Text in context: contributions to ethnomethodology. Eds.Graham Watson, Robert M. Seiler. Newbury Park: SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Heath, C. & Luff, P.
    (1992) Collaboration and control: crisis management and multimedia technology in London underground line control rooms. Journal of Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Vol.1, No.1. 24–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Heinemann, T.
    (2006) “Will you or can’t you?”: Displaying entitlement in interrogative requests. Journal of Pragmatics38, 1081–1104. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.013 [Google Scholar]
  21. Heritage, J.
    (2012) Epistemics in Action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction. Vol.45 (1). 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  22. Houtkoop-Steenstra, H.
    (1987) Establishing agreement: an analysis of proposal-acceptant sequences. Dordrecht and Providence: Foris 1987.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hutchby, I. & Wooffitt, R.
    (1998) Conversation analysis: Principles, practices and applications. Cambridge (UK): Polity Press; Oxford (UK) & Malden (MA): Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Jefferson, G.
    (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. InLerner, Gene H. (Ed). Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. (pp: 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  25. Keisanen, T. & Kärkkäinen, E.
    2014 A multimodal analysis of compliment sequences activity in everyday English interactions. Pragmatics24(3): 649–672. 10.1075/prag.24.3.09kei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.09kei [Google Scholar]
  26. Keyton, J., Ford Debra, J. & Smith Faye, I.
    (2008) A Mesolevel Communicative Model of Collaboration. Communication Theory18: 376–406. 10.1111/j.1468‑2885.2008.00327.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00327.x [Google Scholar]
  27. Kärkkäinen, E.
    (2012) I thought it was very interesting. Conversational formats for taking a stance. InCornillie, Bert & Paola Pietrandrea (eds.), Modality at work: Cognitive, interactional and textual functions of modal markers. Journal of Pragmatics44(15), 2194–2210. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  28. Linde, C.
    (1988) Who’s in charge here? Cooperative work and authority negotiation in police helicopter missions. Proceedings of the 1988 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work, 52–64. doi:  10.1145/62266.62271
    https://doi.org/10.1145/62266.62271 [Google Scholar]
  29. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G.
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation, Language, vol.50, no.4, pp.696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  30. Schmidt, K. & Bannon, L.
    (2013) Constructing CSCW: The First Quarter Century. Computer Supported-Cooperative Work (2013) 10.1007/s10606‑013‑9193‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-013-9193-7 [Google Scholar]
  31. Stevanovic, M.
    (2012) Establishing joint decisions in a dyad. Discourse Studies14 (6), pp.1–25. Sage. doi:  10.1177/1461445612456654
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612456654 [Google Scholar]
  32. Stevanovic, M. & Peräkylä, A.
    (2012) Deontic Authority in Interaction: the Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide. Research on Language & Social Interaction, Vol45–3, pp.297–321 (25). Routledge, Tayler & Francis Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Stivers, T. & Rossano, F.
    (2010) Mobilizing Response. Research on Language & Social Interaction, Informa UK Limited, vol.43, no.1, pp.3–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Stivers, T. & Sidnell, J.
    (2005) Introduction: Multimodal Interaction. Semiotica 2005 (156):1–20. 10.1515/semi.2005.2005.156.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2005.2005.156.1 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2016) Proposals for Activity Collaboration. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49:2. 10.1080/08351813.2016.1164409
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1164409 [Google Scholar]
  36. Uhlířová, L.
    (1994) On the role of the PC as a relevant object in face-to-face communication. Journal of PragmaticsVol.22 (5). doi:  10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90081‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90081-7 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): collaborative interaction; Conversation Analysis; entitlement; format; proposals
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