1887
Approaches to grammar for interactional linguistics
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

Drawing on fifteen video-recorded planning meetings as data, and on conversation analysis as a method, I examine the interactional import of the common Finnish practice of constructing a proposal as a thought. As a point of departure, I consider two different types of conditional utterances in which a speaker presents a plan: (1) ‘asking conditionals’ ( ‘what if’ prefaced declarative conditionals and interrogative conditionals) and (2) ‘stating conditionals’ (declarative conditionals). While asking conditionals mark the plan as contingent on the recipient’s approval and involve a straightforward request for the recipient to engage in joint decision-making about the proposed plan, stating conditionals are regularly treated as informings about plans in which the recipients have actually no word to say. However, when asking and stating conditionals are prefaced with references to the speakers’ thoughts ( ‘I was thinking that’), the projected responses and sequential trajectories are more open-ended: The participants have the opportunity to share the responsibility, not only for what is to be decided with respect to the proposed plan, but also for what is to be jointly decided upon in the first place. Constructing a proposal as a thought seems thus to be a practice with which participants may enable the symmetrical distribution of deontic rights at the very beginning of joint decision-making sequences.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.23.3.07ste
2013-01-01
2019-12-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arminen, Ilkka
    (2005) Institutional interaction: Studies of talk at work. Aldershot: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Barnes, Rebecca , and Duncan Moss
    (2007) Communicating a feeling: The social organization of ‘private thoughts’. Discourse Studies9: 123-148. doi: 10.1177/1461445607075339
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607075339 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bella, Spyridoula
    (2011) Mitigation and politeness in Greek invitation refusals: Effects of length of residence in the target community and intensity of interaction on non-native speakers’ performance. Journal of Pragmatics43: 1718-1740. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.005
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  4. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
    (1987) Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different. Journal of Pragmatics11: 131-146. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(87)90192‑5
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90192-5 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown, Penelope , and Stephen Levinson
    (1978 [1987]) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Byon, Andrew S
    (2006) The role of linguistic indirectness and honorifics in achieving linguistic politeness in Korean requests. Journal of Politeness Research2: 247-276.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Caffi, Claudia
    (1999) On mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics31: 881-909. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00098‑8
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00098-8 [Google Scholar]
  8. Charles, Cathy , A. Gafni , and T. Whelan
    (1997) Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (Or it takes at least two to tango). Social Science and Medicine44: 681-692. doi: 10.1016/S0277‑9536(96)00221‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00221-3 [Google Scholar]
  9. Clark, Herbert H
    (1979) Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Psychology11: 430-477. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0285(79)90020‑3
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(79)90020-3 [Google Scholar]
  10. Clark, Herbert , and Richard Gerrig
    (1990) Quotations as demonstrations. Language66: 764-805. doi: 10.2307/414729
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414729 [Google Scholar]
  11. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
    (1999) Coherent voicing: On prosody in conversational reported speech. In W. Bublitz , and U. Lenk (eds.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse: How to create it and how to describe it. Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 11-32. doi: 10.1075/pbns.63.05cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.63.05cou [Google Scholar]
  12. (2007) Assessing and accounting. In E. Holt , and R. Clift (eds.), Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 81–119.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (forthcoming) What does grammar tell us about action? In R. Laury , M. Etelämäki , and E. Couper-Kuhlen (eds.) Special issue of Pragmatics on “Approaches to grammar for interactional linguistics”.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Curl, Traci S. , and Paul Drew
    (2008) Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction41: 129-153. doi: 10.1080/08351810802028613
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08351810802028613 [Google Scholar]
  15. Drew, Paul , and Elizabeth Holt
    (1995) Idiomatic expressions and their role in the organization of topic transition in conversation. In M. Everaert , E.-J. van der Linden , A. Schenk , and R. Schreuder (eds.), Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 117-132.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Duncan, Starkey , and George Niederehe
    (1974) On signalling that it's your turn to speak. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology10: 234-247. doi: 10.1016/0022‑1031(74)90070‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(74)90070-5 [Google Scholar]
  17. Edwards, Derek
    (1997) Discourse and Cognition. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. (1999) Emotion discourse. Culture and Psychology5: 271-291. doi: 10.1177/1354067X9953001
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X9953001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Edwards, Derek , and Jonathan Potter
    (1992) Discursive Psychology. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Eelen, Gino
    (2001) A critique of politeness theories. Manchester: St. Jerome’s.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Faerch, Claus , and Gabriele Kasper
    (1989) Internal and external modification in interlanguage request realization. In S. Blum-Kulka , J. House , and G. Kasper (eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 221-247.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Fraser, Bruce
    (1980) Conversational mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics 4.4: 341–350. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(80)90029‑6
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(80)90029-6 [Google Scholar]
  23. (1990) Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics14: 219-236. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90081‑N
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90081-N [Google Scholar]
  24. Givón, Talmy
    (2005) Context as other minds: The pragmatics of sociality, cognition and communication. Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/z.130
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.130 [Google Scholar]
  25. Goffman, Erving
    (1955) On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes18: 213-231.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Günthner, Susanne
    (1999) Polyphony and the “layering of voices” in reported dialogues: An analysis of the use of prosodic devices in everyday reported speech. Journal of Pragmatics31: 685-708. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00093‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00093-9 [Google Scholar]
  27. Haakana, Markku
    (2007) Reported thought in complaint stories. In E. Holt , and R. Clift (eds.), Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 150-178.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hakulinen, Auli , M. Vilkuna , R. Korhonen , V. Koivisto , T.R. Heinonen , and I. Alho
    (2004) Iso suomen kielioppi[The Comprehensive Grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hepburn, Alexa , and Sally Wiggins
    (2007) Discursive research: Themes and debates. In A. Hepburn and S. Wiggins (eds.), Discursive research in practice: New approaches to psychology and interaction.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-28. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611216
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611216 [Google Scholar]
  30. Heritage, John
    (1984) Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (2011) Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Emphatic moments in interaction. In T. Stivers , L. Mondada , and J. Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 159-183. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.008 [Google Scholar]
  32. Heritage, John , and Geoffrey Raymond
    (2005) The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly68: 15-38. doi: 10.1177/019027250506800103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103 [Google Scholar]
  33. House, Juliane , and Gabriele Kasper
    (1981) Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (ed.), Conversational routines. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 157-185.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Houtkoop, Hanneke
    (1987) Establishing agreement: An analysis of proposal-acceptance sequences. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. (1990) Accounting for proposals. Journal of Pragmatics14: 111-124. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90066‑M
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90066-M [Google Scholar]
  36. Jefferson, Gail
    (2004) “At first I thought:” A normalizing device for extraordinary events. In G.H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation. Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 131-167. doi: 10.1075/pbns.125.09jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.09jef [Google Scholar]
  37. Kärkkäinen, Elise
    (2012) “I thought it was very interesting:” Conversational formats for taking a stance. Journal of Pragmatics44: 2194-2210. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lakoff, Robin
    (1973) The logic of politeness; or, minding your p’s and q’s. Proceedings of the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society , pp. 292-305.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Laury, Ritva
    (2012) Syntactically non-integrated Finnish jos ‘if’ -conditional clauses as directives. Discourse Processes49: 213-242. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2012.664758
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2012.664758 [Google Scholar]
  40. Leech, Geoffrey
    (1983) Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Lindström, Anna
    (1999) Language as social action: Grammar, prosody, and interaction in Swedish conversation. Ph.D. thesis. Uppsala University, Uppsala.
  42. Lindström, Jan , and Camilla Lindholm
    (2009) “May I ask:” Question frames in institutional interaction. In M. Haakana , M. Laakso , and J. Lindström (eds.), Talk in interaction: Comparative dimensions. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society, pp. 180-205.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Linell, Per
    (2009) Rethinking language, mind and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Lukes, Steven
    (1978) Power and authority. In T. Bottomore , and R. Nisbet (eds.), A history of sociological analysis. London: Heinemann, pp. 633-676.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Meier, Christoph
    (1997) Arbeitsbesprechungen: Interaktionsstrukturen, Interaktions-dynamik und Konsequenzen einer sozialen Form. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Mills, Sara
    (2003) Gender and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511615238
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615238 [Google Scholar]
  47. Myers, Greg
    (1998) Displaying opinions: Topic and disagreement in focus groups. Language in Society27: 85-111. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500019734
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500019734 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2004) Matters of opinion: Talking about public ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486708
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486708 [Google Scholar]
  49. Niemelä, Maarit
    (2005) Voiced direct reported speech in conversational storytelling: Sequential patterns of stance taking. SKY Journal of Linguistics18: 197-221.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Oreström, Bengt
    (1983) Turn-taking in English conversation. Lund, SE: CWK Gleerup.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Pomerantz, Anita
    (1984) Pursuing a response. In J.M. Atkinson , and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 152-164.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Potter, Jonathan
    (2006) Cognition and conversation. Discourse Studies8: 131-140. doi: 10.1177/1461445606059562
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461445606059562 [Google Scholar]
  53. Potter, Jonathan , and Claudia Puchta
    (2007) Mind, mousse and moderation. In A. Hepburn , and S. Wiggins (eds.), Discursive research in practice: New approaches to psychology and interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 104-123. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611216.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611216.006 [Google Scholar]
  54. Raymond, Geoffrey
    (2003) Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review68: 939-967. doi: 10.2307/1519752
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1519752 [Google Scholar]
  55. Raymond, Geoffrey , and John Heritage
    (2006) The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society35: 677-705. doi: 10.1017/S0047404506060325
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060325 [Google Scholar]
  56. Romaine, Suzanne , and Deborah Lange
    (1991) The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech66: 227-278. doi: 10.2307/455799
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/455799 [Google Scholar]
  57. Sacks, Harvey
    (1992) Lectures on conversation, Vol. 1 and 2. Edited by Gail Jefferson , with an introduction by Emanuel A. Schegloff. Malden: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Schegloff, Emanuel A
    (2007) Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  59. Searle, John R
    (1976) A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society5: 1-23. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500006837
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837 [Google Scholar]
  60. Sidnell, Jack
    (2006) Coordinating gesture, gaze and talk in re-enactments. Research on Language and Social Interaction39: 377-409. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_2 [Google Scholar]
  61. Silverstein, Michael
    (2010) “Direct” and “indirect” communicative acts in semiotic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics42: 337-353. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.06.003 [Google Scholar]
  62. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
    (2001) Responding in conversation: A study of response particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.70
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.70 [Google Scholar]
  63. Spencer-Oatey, Helen
    (2000) Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In H. Spencer-Oatey (2000), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures. London: Continuum, pp. 98-120.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. (2002) Managing rapport in talk: Using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of Pragmatic34: 529-545. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(01)00039‑X
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00039-X [Google Scholar]
  65. Stevanovic, Melisa
    (2012a) Establishing joint decisions in a dyad. Discourse Studies14: 779-803. doi: 10.1177/1461445612456654
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612456654 [Google Scholar]
  66. (2012b) Prosodic salience and the emergence of new decisions: On the prosody of approval in Finnish workplace interaction. Journal of Pragmatics44: 843-862. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.007
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.007 [Google Scholar]
  67. Stevanovic, Melisa , and Anssi Peräkylä
    (2012) Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45: 297-321. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260 [Google Scholar]
  68. Stivers, Tanya , and Makoto Hayashi
    (2010) Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society39: 1-25. doi: 10.1017/S0047404509990637
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404509990637 [Google Scholar]
  69. Strong, Michael , and Wendy Baron
    (2004) An analysis of mentoring conversations with beginning teachers: Suggestions and responses. Teaching and Teacher Education20: 47-57. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2003.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  70. Tykkyläinen, Tuula , and Minna Laakso
    (2009) Five-year-old girls negotiating pretend play: Proposals with the Finnish particle jooko . Journal of Pragmatics42: 242-256.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Vásquez, Camilla , and Alfredo Urzúa
    (2009) Reported speech and reported mental states in mentoring meetings: Exploring novice teacher identities. Research on Language and Social Interaction42: 1-19. doi: 10.1080/08351810802671693
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802671693 [Google Scholar]
  72. Watts, Richard
    (2003) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511615184
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184 [Google Scholar]
  73. Yngve, Victor H
    (1970) On getting a word in edgewise. Papers from the sixth regional meeting Chicago Linguistic Society , pp. 567-577.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.23.3.07ste
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Conversation analysis , Decision-making , Deontic rights , Mitigation , Proposals and Reported thought
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