The grammar of proposals for joint activities
Sandra A. Thompson | UC Santa Barbara
Barbara A. Fox | University of Colorado, Boulder
Chase Wesley Raymond | University of Colorado, Boulder
The action of proposing has been studied from various perspectives in research on talk-in-interaction, both in
mundane as well as in institutional talk. Aiming to exemplify Interactional Linguistics as a drawing together of insights from
Linguistics and Conversation Analysis, we explore the grammar of proposals and the stances displayed by participants in making
proposals in the context of joint activities, where a future or hypothetical activity is being put forth as something the speaker
and recipient(s) might do together. Close examination of interactions among American English-speaking adults reveals four
recurrent grammatical formats for issuing proposals: Let’s, Why don’t we, Modal Declaratives, and Modal
Interrogatives. We argue that these four formats for doing proposing within a joint activity are used in socially distinct
environments, contributing to a growing understanding of the fit between entrenched linguistic patterns and the social work they
have evolved to do.
Keywords: proposal, joint activities, (grammatical) format,
let’s
, grammar, deontic strength
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Establishing a collection of joint-activity proposals
- 3.The grammar of proposals for joint activities
- 3.1 Let’s
- 3.2 Why don’t we (WDW)
- 3.3Modal Declaratives
- 3.4Modal Interrogatives
- 4.Discussion
- 4.1The action of proposing a joint activity
- 4.2The grammar of proposing a joint activity
- 5.Conclusion: Grammar in the service of deontic symmetry
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
This article is available free of charge.
Published online: 06 May 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.20011.tho
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.20011.tho
References
Alcázar, A. & Saltarelli, M.
Asmuß, B. & Oshima, S.
Barnes, R.
Bolden, G. B. & Robinson, J. D.
Clayman, S. E. & Heritage, J.
Clift, R. & Raymond, C. W.
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Thompson, S. A.
Frthc.). Action
ascription in everyday advice-giving sequences. In A. Depperman & M. Haugh Eds. Action
ascription: interaction in context Cambridge Cambridge University Press
Curl, T. S.
Curl, T. S. & Drew, P.
Du Bois, I.
Floyd, S., Rossi, G., & Enfield, N. J.
Fox, B. A. & Heinemann, T.
Goodwin, M. H.
Haiman, J.
Heritage, J.
Heritage, J. & Raymond, C. W.
Hoey, E.
Hoey, E. & C. W. Raymond
Frthc.). Managing
data in conversation analysis. In A. Berez-Kroeker, B. McDonnell, & E. Koller Eds. The
open handbook of linguistic data
management Cambridge MIT Press
Holt, E.
Kendrick, K. H. & Drew, P.
Koshik, Irene
Küttner, U-A. & C. W. Raymond
Frthc.). ‘I
was gonna say…’: preliminary observations on the doubly reflexive character of a meta-communicative
practice. LiLi, Studien zu Literaturwissenschaft und
Linguistik.
Lindström, A.
Raymond, C. W., Robinson, J. D., Fox, B. A., Thompson, S. A., & Montiegel, K.
Robinson, J. D.
Robinson, J. D. & Bolden, G. B.
Robinson, J. D. & Kevoe-Feldman, H.
Sacks, H.
Sacks, H. & E. A. Schegloff
Schegloff, E. A.
Stevanovic, M. & Peräkylä, A.
Stevanovic, M., Valkeäpää, T., Waiste, E., & Lindholm, C.
Stivers, T.
Stivers, T. & Sidnell, J.
Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
Wootton, A. J.
Zinken, J. & Deppermann, A.