Article in:
Interactional Linguistics: Online-First Articles

The grammar of proposals for joint activities

| UC Santa Barbara
| University of Colorado, Boulder
| 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


This article is available free of charge.

Published online: 06 May 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.20011.tho

Full-text

The grammar of proposals for joint activities
References

References

Aikhenvald, A. Y.
(2010) Imperatives and commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alcázar, A. & Saltarelli, M.
(2014) The syntax of imperatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Asmuß, B. & Oshima, S.
(2012) Negotiation of entitlement in proposal sequences. Discourse Studies 14(1):67–86. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, R.
(2007) Formulations and the facilitation of common agreement in meetings talk. Text & Talk 27(3):273–296. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolden, G. B. & Robinson, J. D.
(2011) Soliciting accounts with why-interrogatives in conversation. Journal of Communication 61(1):94–119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L.
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S. E. & Heritage, J.
(2014) Benefactors and beneficiaries: benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & P. Drew (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction, (55–86). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clift, R. & Raymond, C. W.
(2018) Actions in practice: On details in collections. Discourse Studies, 20(1):90–119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E.
(2014) What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics 24(3),623–647. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.
(2006) Offers of assistance: constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics, 38:1257–1280. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Curl, T. S. & Drew, P.
(2008) Contingency and action: a comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(2):1–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davies, E.
(1979) On the semantics of syntax: mood and condition in English. London: Croom-Helm.Google Scholar
Du Bois, I.
(2012) Grammatical, pragmatic and sociolinguistic aspects of the first person plural pronoun. In N. Baumgarten, I. Du Bois, & J. House (Eds.). Subjectivity in language and in discourse (319–338). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Floyd, S., Rossi, G., & Enfield, N. J.
(Eds) (2020) Getting others to do things, A pragmatic typology of recruitments. Berlin: Language Sciences Press.Google Scholar
Fox, B. A. & Heinemann, T.
(2016) Rethinking format, an examination of requests. Language in Society 45(4):499–531. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, M. H.
(1990) He-said-she-said: talk as social organization among black children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, J.
(1998) Talk is cheap, sarcasm, alienation, and the evolution of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J.
(1984a) A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1984b) Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Raymond, C. W.
(2021) Preference and polarity: Epistemic stance in question design. Research on Language and Social Interaction 54.1: 39–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoey, E.
(2020) Self-authorizing action: On let me X in English social interaction. Language in Society. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.
(1996) Reporting on talk: the use of direct reported speech in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 29(3):219–245. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Houtkoop, H.
(1987) Establishing agreement. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, K. H. & Drew, P.
(2016) Recruitment, Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(1):1–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koshik, Irene
2002 Designedly incomplete utterances: a pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction 5.3: 277–309. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.
(2017) Accepting remote proposals. In G. Raymond, G. H. Lerner, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Enabling human conduct: studies of talk-in-interaction in honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff, (125–142). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, C. W., Robinson, J. D., Fox, B. A., Thompson, S. A., & Montiegel, K.
(2021) Modulating action through minimization: Syntax in the service of offering and requesting. Language in Society 50.1: 53–91. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. D.
(2016) Accountability in social interaction. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in social interaction (3–46). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2020) One type of polar, information-seeking question and its stance of probability: Implications for the preference for agreement. Research on Language and Social Interaction 53(4), 425–442. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. D. & Bolden, G. B.
(2010) Preference organization of sequence-initiating actions: the case of explicit account solicitations. Discourse Studies 12(4):501–533. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. D. & Kevoe-Feldman, H.
(2016) The accountability of proposing (vs. soliciting proposals of) arrangements. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in social interaction (264–293). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H.
(1987[1973]) On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (54–69). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. & E. A. Schegloff
(1979) Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language, studies in Ethnomethodology (15–21). New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.
(2007) Sequence organization in interaction: a primer in conversation analysis Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, M.
(2012) Establishing Joint Decisions in a Dyad. Discourse Studies 14(6):779–803. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Constructing a proposal as a thought: a way to manage problems in the initiation of joint decision-making in Finnish workplace interaction. Pragmatics 23(3):519–544. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, M. & Peräkylä, A.
(2012) Deontic authority in interaction: the right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3):297–321. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, M., Valkeäpää, T., Waiste, E., & Lindholm, C.
(2020) Joint decision making in a mental health rehabilitation community: the impact of support workers’ proposal design on client responsiveness. Counseling Psychology Quarterly. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T.
(2004) “No no no” and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research, 30(2):260–293. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. & Sidnell, J.
(2016) Proposals for activity collaboration. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(2):148–166. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
(2015) Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2014) The ultra-social animal. European Journal of Social Psychology 44(3):187–194. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wootton, A. J.
(1997) Interaction and the development of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zinken, J. & Deppermann, A.
(2017) A cline of visible commitment in the situated design of imperative turns. In M-L. Sorjonen, L. Raevaara & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Imperative turns at talk: the design of directives in action (27–64). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zinken, J. & Ogiermann, E.
(2011) How to propose an action as objectively necessary: The case of Polish trzeba x (“One needs to x”). Research on Language and Social Interaction 44(3):263–287. CrossrefGoogle Scholar