1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics
  4. Volume 24, Issue 3
  5. Article
Approaches to grammar for interactional linguistics
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
PDF

Abstract

Using cases of misalignment and realignment in the unfolding of interactional sequences in which future actions and events are being negotiated in everyday English conversation, this paper demonstrates that participants distinguish between the initiating actions of Proposal*, Offer*, Request*, and Suggestion*, if these labels are understood as technical terms for distinct constellations of answers to the questions (i) who will carry out the future action? and (ii) who will benefit from it?. The argument made is that these different action types are routinely associated with different sets of recurrent linguistic forms, or , and that it is through these that speakers can frame their turns as implementing one action type as opposed to another and that recipients can recognize these actions as such and respond to them accordingly. The fact that there is only a limited amount of ‘polysemy’, or overlap in the formats commonly used for Proposals*, Requests*, Offers*, and Suggestions* in English conversation, means that these formats deliver often distinctive cues to the type of action being implemented. When misalignments and realignments occur, they can often be traced to the fact that ‘polysemous’ linguistic formats have been used to implement the initiating action.

© 2014 International Pragmatics Association
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou
2015-09-01
2024-10-05

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Atkinson, J.M. , and J. Heritage
    (eds.) (1984) Structures of Social Action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Austin, J.L
    (1962) How to Do Things with Words. London: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Couper-Kuhlen, E. , and M. Etelämäki
    (fthc.) On divisions of labor in request and offer environments. In Paul Drew , and E. Couper-Kuhlen (eds.) Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/slsi.26.05cou
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26.05cou [Google Scholar]
  4. Curl, T.S
    (2006) Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics38: 1257-1280. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  5. Curl, T.S. , and P. Drew
    (2008) Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction41.2: 129-153. doi: 10.1080/08351810802028613
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810802028613 [Google Scholar]
  6. Drew, P
    (2013) Conversation analysis and social action. Journal of Foreign Languages37.3: 1-20.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Ervin-Tripp, S
    (1976) “Is Sybil there?” The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society5.1: 25-66. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500006849
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006849 [Google Scholar]
  8. Fillmore, C.J
    (1988) The mechanisms of “construction grammar”. Proceedings, Berkeley Linguistics Society14: 35-55.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Fillmore, C.J. , P. Kay , and M-C. O’Connor
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of LET ALONE. Language64.3: 501-538. doi: 10.2307/414531
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  10. Fox, B.A
    (2000) Micro-syntax in English conversation. Paper presented atthe conference Interactional Linguistics (sponsored by EURESCO), September, Spa, Belgium.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. (2007) Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies9: 299-318. doi: 10.1177/1461445607076201
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607076201 [Google Scholar]
  12. Goodwin, C. , and M.H. Goodwin
    (1992) Assessment and the construction of context. In A. Duranti , and C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context. Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.147-189.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Heritage, J
    (2011) Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic 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]
  14. Heritage, J. , and S. Sefi
    (1992) Dilemmas of advice: Aspects of the delivery and reception of advice in interactions between health visitors and first-time mothers. In P. Drew , and J. Heritage (eds.), Talk at Work. Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.359-417.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Jefferson, G. , and J.R.E. Lee
    (1981) The rejection of advice: Managing the problematic convergence of a “troubles-telling” and a “service encounter”. Journal of Pragmatics5: 399-422. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(81)90026‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(81)90026-6 [Google Scholar]
  16. Kärkkäinen, E. , and T. Keisanen
    (2012) Linguistic and embodied formats for making (concrete) offers. Discourse Studies14.5: 587-611. doi: 10.1177/1461445612454069
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612454069 [Google Scholar]
  17. Kendrick, K.H. , and P. Drew
    (fthc.) The putative preference for offers over requests. In P. Drew , and E. Couper-Kuhlen (eds.) Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/slsi.26.04ken
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26.04ken [Google Scholar]
  18. Levinson, S.C
    (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. (2013) Action formation and ascription. In J. Sidnell , and T. Stivers (eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden MA: Wiley Blackwell, pp.103-130.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. . (fthc.) Speech acts. In Y. Hwang (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Lindström, A
    . (fthc.) Accepting remote proposals. In G. Raymond , G.H. Lerner , and J. Heritage (eds.) Enabling human conduct: Naturalistic studies of talk-in-interaction in honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Rauniomaa, M. , and T. Keisanen
    (2012) Two multimodal formats for responding to requests. Journal of Pragmatics44: 829-842. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.003 [Google Scholar]
  23. Schegloff, E.A
    (1980) Preliminaries to preliminaries: “Can I ask you a question?”. Sociological Inquiry50: 104-152. doi: 10.1111/j.1475‑682X.1980.tb00018.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00018.x [Google Scholar]
  24. (1984) On some questions and ambiguities in conversations. In J.M. Atkinson , and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.28-52.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  26. Searle, J.R
    (1969) Speech Acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  27. (1975) Indirect speech acts. Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech acts. P. Cole , and J.L. Morgan (eds.). New York: Academic Press, pp.59-82.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. (1976) A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society5: 1-23. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500006837
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837 [Google Scholar]
  29. Stevanovic, M
    (2012) Prosodic salience and the emergence of new decisions: On approving responses to proposals in Finnish workplace interaction. Journal of Pragmatics44: 843-862. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.007 [Google Scholar]
  30. Stevanovic, M. , and A. Peräkylä
    (2012) Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction45: 297-321. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.699260
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260 [Google Scholar]
  31. Thompson, S.A. , B.A. Fox , and E. Couper-Kuhlen
    (fthc) Grammar and Everyday Talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Action formation; Action recognition; Directive; Offer; Proposal; Request; Social action format; Suggestion

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