Article in:
Interactional Linguistics
Vol. 1:2 (2021) ► pp. 183215

Full-text

Positionally-sensitive action-ascription
References

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 , 876–889. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baldauf-Quilliatre, H., & Imo, W.
(2020) pfff. In W. Imo & J. P. Lanwer (Eds.), Prosodie und Konstruktionsgrammatik (pp. 201–232). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Betz, E.
(2015) Indexing epistemic access through different confirmation formats: uses of responsive (das) stimmt in German interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 87 , 251–266. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H.
(1979) Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Psychology, 11 (4), 430–477. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E.
(2014) What does grammar tell us about action?. Pragmatics, 24 (3), 623–647. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M.
(2018) Interactional linguistics: studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Craven, A., & Potter, J.
(2010) Directives: entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, 12 (4), 419–442. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Curl, T., & Drew, P.
(2008) Contingency and action: a comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41 , 129–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A., & Schmidt, A.
(2021) Micro-sequential coordination in early responses. In: Discourse Processes, 58 (4), 372–396. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
(Eds.) (2014) Requesting in social interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S.
(1976) Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society, 5 (1), 25–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S., Strage, A., Lampert, M., & Bell, N.
(1987) Understanding requests. Linguistics, 25 (1), 107–143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Floyd, S., Rossi, G., & Enfield, N. J.
(Eds.) (2020) Getting others to do things: a pragmatic typology of recruitments. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Fox, B. A.
(2007) Principles shaping grammatical practices: an exploration. Discourse Studies, 9 (3), 299–318. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) On the notion of pre-request. Discourse Studies, 17 (1), 41–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, B. A., & Heinemann, T.
(2016) Rethinking format: an examination of requests. Language in Society, 45 (4), 499–531. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Issues in action formation: Requests and the problem with x. Open Linguistics, 3 (1), 31–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(1994) The poetics of mind: figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E.
(1971) Relations in public. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gordon, D., & Lakoff, G.
(1971) Conversational postulates. In Proceedings of the 7th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 63–84).Google Scholar
Gubina, A.
(2021a) Availability, grammar, and action formation: On simple and modal interrogative request formats in spoken German. In: Gesprächsforschung / Discourse and Conversation Analysis 22, 272–303.Google Scholar
(2021b) Intersubjektivitatssicherung und Inferenzzuruckweisung: Funktionen der Responsivpartikel doch im gesprochenen Deutsch. Paper given at Arbeitstagung zur Gesprächsforschung, Mannheim, http://​tagung​.gespraechsforschung​.de​/wp​-content​/uploads​/2021​/01​/heft2021​.pdf
Heritage, J.
(2012) Epistemics in action: action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45 (1), 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2021) The multiple accountabilities of action. In A. Deppermann & M. Haugh (Eds.), Action ascription in interaction (pp. 297–328). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koshik, I.
(2003) Wh-questions used as challenges. Discourse Studies, 5 (1), 51–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, A.
(2012) Modals and conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
(1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Action-formation and ascription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 103–130). Malden: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Parry, R.
(2013) Giving reasons for doing something now or at some other time. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46 (2), 105–124, CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rauniomaa, M., & Keisanen, T.
(2012) Two multimodal formats for responding to requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 44 (6–7), 829–842. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rossi, G., & Zinken, J.
(2016) Grammar and social agency: the pragmatics of impersonal deontic statements. Language, 92 (4), e296–e325. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(1988) Presequences and indirection: applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 12 (1), 55–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993) Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26 (1), 99–128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R., & Vanderveken, D.
(1985) Speech acts and illocutionary logic. In D. Vanderveken (Ed.), Logic, thought and action (pp. 109–132). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R.
(1969) Speech acts: an essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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.Google Scholar
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 , 1–51.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T.
(Eds.) (2013) The handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M.
(1975) Towards an analysis of discourse: the English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, M. L., Raevaara, L., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
(Eds.) (2017) Imperative turns at talk: the design of directives in action. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. 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
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., & Hayashi, M.
(2010) Transformative answers: one way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society, 39 (1), 1–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., & Rossano, F.
(2010) Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43 (1), 3–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thornburg, L., & Panther, K.
(1997) Speech act metonymies. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, 4 , 205–222. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zinken, J.
(2015) Contingent control over shared goods. ‘Can I have x’ requests in British English informal interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 82 , 23–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Requesting responsibility. The morality of grammar in Polish and English family interaction. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar