Article published In:
Interactional LinguisticsVol. 1:2 (2021) ► pp.183–215
Positionally-sensitive action-ascription
Uses of Kannst du X? ‘Can you X?’ in their sequential and multimodal context
Schegloff (1996) has argued that grammars are “positionally-sensitive”, implying that the situated use and understanding of linguistic formats depends on their sequential position. Analyzing the German format Kannst du X? (corresponding to English Can you X?) based on 82 instances from a large corpus of talk-in-interaction (FOLK), this paper shows how different action-ascriptions to turns using the same format depend on various orders of context. We show that not only sequential position, but also epistemic status, interactional histories, multimodal conduct, and linguistic devices co-occurring in the same turn are decisive for the action implemented by the format. The range of actions performed with Kannst du X? and their close interpretive interrelationship suggest that they should not be viewed as a fixed inventory of context-dependent interpretations of the format. Rather, the format provides for a root-interpretation that can be adapted to local contextual contingencies, yielding situated action-ascriptions that depend on constraints created by contexts of use.
Keywords: action-ascription, request, question, Interactional Linguistics, Conversation Analysis, modal verbs, positionally-sensitive grammar, German
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Previous research on can you X?
- 3.Data and methods
- 4.Grammar and semantics of Kannst du X?
- 5.Uses of Kannst du X?
- 5.1 Kannst du X? used as question concerning the recipient’s ability, the permissibility, or the possibility of action
- 5.2 Kannst du X? used as request for action
- 6.Summary
- 7.Discussion
- 8.Symbols used in transcripts
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
- Glosses
-
References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].
References
Antaki, C., & Kent, A.
(2012) Telling
people what to do (and, sometimes, why): contingency, entitlement and explanation in staff requests to adults with
intellectual impairments. Journal of
Pragmatics,
44
1, 876–889. 
Auer, P.
(1996) On
the prosody and syntax of turn-continuations. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody
in
conversation (pp. 57–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baldauf-Quilliatre, H., & Imo, W.
(2020) pfff. In W. Imo & J. P. Lanwer (Eds.), Prosodie
und
Konstruktionsgrammatik (pp. 201–232). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Betz, E.
(2015) Indexing
epistemic access through different confirmation formats: uses of responsive (das) stimmt in
German interaction. Journal of
Pragmatics,
87
1, 251–266.
Bolinger, D. L.
(1957) Interrogative
structures of American English: the direct question. Publication of the American
Dialect Society, No. 28. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Clark, H. H.
(1979) Responding
to indirect speech acts. Cognitive
Psychology,
11
(4), 430–477.
Clayman, S. E., & Heritage, J.
(2014) Benefactors
and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and
requests. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting
in social
interaction (pp. 55–86). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Couper-Kuhlen, E.
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M.
(2018) Interactional
linguistics: studying language in social
interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Craven, A., & Potter, J.
(2010) Directives:
entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse
Studies,
12
(4), 419–442.
Curl, T., & Drew, P.
(2008) Contingency
and action: a comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and
Social
Interaction,
41
1, 129–153.
Deppermann, A., & Haugh, M.
(2021) Action
ascription in social interaction. In A. Deppermann & M. Haugh (Eds.), Action
ascription in
interaction (pp. 3–27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deppermann, A., & Schmidt, A.
(2021) Micro-sequential
coordination in early responses. In: Discourse
Processes,
58
(4), 372–396.
Drew, P., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
Ekman, P.
(1979) About
brows: emotional and conversational signals. In M. von Cranach, K. Foppa, W. Lepenies & D. Ploog (Eds.), Human
ethology (169–249). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ervin-Tripp, S.
(1976) Is
Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in
Society,
5
(1), 25–66.
Ervin-Tripp, S., Strage, A., Lampert, M., & Bell, N.
(1987) Understanding
requests. Linguistics,
25
(1), 107–143.
Floyd, S., Rossi, G., & Enfield, N. J.
(Eds.) (2020) Getting
others to do things: a pragmatic typology of
recruitments. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Fox, B. A.
(2007) Principles
shaping grammatical practices: an exploration. Discourse
Studies,
9
(3), 299–318.
(2015) On
the notion of pre-request. Discourse
Studies,
17
(1), 41–63.
Fox, B. A., & Heinemann, T.
(2016) Rethinking
format: an examination of requests. Language in
Society,
45
(4), 499–531.
(2017) Issues
in action formation: Requests and the problem with x. Open
Linguistics,
3
(1), 31–64.
Gibbs, R. W.
(1983) Do
people always process the literal meanings of indirect requests?. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition,
9
(3), 524–533.
(1994) The
poetics of mind: figurative thought, language, and
understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goffman, E.
(1971) Relations
in public. New York: Basic Books.
Gordon, D., & Lakoff, G.
(1971) Conversational
postulates. In Proceedings of the 7th Regional Meeting of
the Chicago Linguistic
Society (pp. 63–84).
Gubina, A.
(2021a) Availability,
grammar, and action formation: On simple and modal interrogative request formats in spoken
German. In: Gesprächsforschung / Discourse and
Conversation
Analysis 221, 272–303.
(2021b) Intersubjektivitatssicherung
und Inferenzzuruckweisung: Funktionen der Responsivpartikel doch im gesprochenen
Deutsch. Paper given at Arbeitstagung zur Gesprächsforschung,
Mannheim, [URL]
Heritage, J.
(2012) Epistemics
in action: action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and
Social
Interaction,
45
(1), 1–29.
(2021) The
multiple accountabilities of action. In A. Deppermann & M. Haugh (Eds.), Action
ascription in
interaction (pp. 297–328). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J., & M.-L. Sorjonen
(1994) Constituting
and maintaining activities across sequences: and-prefacing as a feature of question
design. Language in
Society,
23
(1), 1–29.
Koshik, I.
(2003) Wh-questions
used as challenges. Discourse
Studies,
5
(1), 51–77.
Kratzer, A.
(2012) Modals
and conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levinson, S. C.
(1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2013) Action-formation
and ascription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The
Handbook of Conversation
Analysis (pp. 103–130). Malden: Wiley Blackwell.
Mondada, L.
(2018) Multiple
temporalities of language and body in interaction: challenges for transcribing
multimodality. Research on Language and Social
Interaction,
51
(1), 85–106.
Parry, R.
(2013) Giving
reasons for doing something now or at some other time. Research on Language and
Social
Interaction,
46
(2), 105–124,
Rauniomaa, M., & Keisanen, T.
(2012) Two
multimodal formats for responding to requests. Journal of
Pragmatics,
44
(6–7), 829–842.
Raymond, G.
(2013) At
the intersection of turn and sequence organization: on the relevance of “slots” in type-conforming responses to
polar interrogatives. In B. Szczepek Reed & G. Raymond (Eds.), Units
of talk – units of
action (pp. 169–206). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Robinson, J.
(2013) Epistemics,
action formation, and other-initiation of repair: the case of partial questioning
repeats. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational
repair and human
understanding (pp. 261–292). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rossi, G.
(2015) The
request system in Italian interaction (Ph.D.
dissertation). Nijmegen: Radboud University.
(2018) Composite
social actions: the case of factual declaratives in everyday interaction. Research
on Language and Social
Interaction,
51
(4), 379–397.
Rossi, G., & Zinken, J.
(2016) Grammar
and social agency: the pragmatics of impersonal deontic
statements. Language,
92
(4), e296–e325.
Schegloff, E. A.
(1984) On
some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures
of social
action (pp. 266–298). Cambridge University Press.
(1988) Presequences
and indirection: applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation. Journal of
Pragmatics,
12
(1), 55–62.
(1993) Reflections
on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social
Interaction,
26
(1), 99–128.
(1996) Turn
organization: one intersection of grammar and
interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction
and
grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2007) Sequence
organization in
interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, T.
(2016) Good
practices in the compilation of FOLK, the Research and Teaching Corpus of Spoken
German. International Journal of Corpus
Linguistics,
21
(3), 396–418.
Searle, J. R., & Vanderveken, D.
(1985) Speech
acts and illocutionary logic. In D. Vanderveken (Ed.), Logic,
thought and
action (pp. 109–132). Dordrecht: Springer.
Searle, J. R.
(1969) Speech
acts: an essay in the Philosophy of
Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(1975) Indirect
speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax
and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech
acts (pp. 261–286). New York: Academic Press.
Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K. et al.
(2011) A
system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. Translated and adapted for English by E. Couper-Kuhlen and D.
Barth-Weingarten. Gesprächsforschung / Discourse and Conversation
Analysis
12
1, 1–51.
Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T.
(Eds.) (2013) The
handbook of Conversation
Analysis. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M.
(1975) Towards
an analysis of discourse: the English used by teachers and
pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
Sorjonen, M. L., Raevaara, L., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
Steensig, J., & Heinemann, T.
(2013) When
“yes” is not enough – as an answer to a yes/no
question. In B. Szczepek Reed & G. Raymond (Eds.), Units
of talk – units of
action (pp. 207–242). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
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.
Stivers, T.
(2004) “No
no no” and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human
Communication
Research,
30
(2), 260–293.
Stivers, T., & Hayashi, M.
(2010) Transformative
answers: one way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in
Society,
39
(1), 1–25.
Stivers, T., & Rossano, F.
(2010) Mobilizing
response. Research on Language and Social
Interaction,
43
(1), 3–31.
Stivers, T., Rossi, G., & Chalfoun, A.
submitted). Ambiguities
in action ascription. Social Forces.
Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A. & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
(2015) Grammar
in everyday talk: building responsive
actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thornburg, L., & Panther, K.
(1997) Speech
act metonymies. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic
Science,
4
1, 205–222.
Wootton, A. J.
(2005) Interactional
and sequential configurations informing request format selection in children’s
speech. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax
and lexis in conversation: studies on the use of linguistic resources in
talk-in-interaction (pp. 185–207). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Zinken, J.
(2015) Contingent
control over shared goods. ‘Can I have x’ requests in British English informal
interaction. Journal of
Pragmatics,
82
1, 23–38.
(2016) Requesting
responsibility. The morality of grammar in Polish and English family
interaction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Zinken, J., & Ogiermann, E.
(2013) Responsibility
and action: invariants and diversity in requests for objects in British English and Polish
interaction. Research on Language and Social
Interaction,
46
(3), 256–276.