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.
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
References (68)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clark, H. H. (1979). Responding
to indirect speech acts. Cognitive
Psychology,
11
(4), 430–477. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional
linguistics: studying language in social
interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Craven, A., & Potter, J. (2010). Directives:
entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse
Studies,
12
(4), 419–442. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Deppermann, A., & Schmidt, A. (2021). Micro-sequential
coordination in early responses. In: Discourse
Processes,
58
(4), 372–396. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976). Is
Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in
Society,
5
(1), 25–66. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ervin-Tripp, S., Strage, A., Lampert, M., & Bell, N. (1987). Understanding
requests. Linguistics,
25
(1), 107–143. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fox, B. A. (2007). Principles
shaping grammatical practices: an exploration. Discourse
Studies,
9
(3), 299–318. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fox, B. A. (2015). On
the notion of pre-request. Discourse
Studies,
17
(1), 41–63. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fox, B. A., & Heinemann, T. (2016). Rethinking
format: an examination of requests. Language in
Society,
45
(4), 499–531. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fox, B. A., & Heinemann, T. (2017). Issues
in action formation: Requests and the problem with x. Open
Linguistics,
3
(1), 31–64. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbs, R. W. (1994). The
poetics of mind: figurative thought, language, and
understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations
in public. New York: Basic Books.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gordon, D., & Lakoff, G. (1971). Conversational
postulates. In Proceedings of the 7th Regional Meeting of
the Chicago Linguistic
Society (pp. 63–84).![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gubina, A. (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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heritage, J. (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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Koshik, I. (2003). Wh-questions
used as challenges. Discourse
Studies,
5
(1), 51–77. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kratzer, A. (2012). Modals
and conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action-formation
and ascription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The
Handbook of Conversation
Analysis (pp. 103–130). Malden: Wiley Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Parry, R. (2013). Giving
reasons for doing something now or at some other time. Research on Language and
Social
Interaction,
46
(2), 105–124, ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rauniomaa, M., & Keisanen, T. (2012). Two
multimodal formats for responding to requests. Journal of
Pragmatics,
44
(6–7), 829–842. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rossi, G. (2015). The
request system in Italian interaction (Ph.D.
dissertation). Nijmegen: Radboud University.
Rossi, G. (2018). Composite
social actions: the case of factual declaratives in everyday interaction. Research
on Language and Social
Interaction,
51
(4), 379–397. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rossi, G., & Zinken, J. (2016). Grammar
and social agency: the pragmatics of impersonal deontic
statements. Language,
92
(4), e296–e325. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schegloff, E. A. (1988). Presequences
and indirection: applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation. Journal of
Pragmatics,
12
(1), 55–62. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schegloff, E. A. (1993). Reflections
on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social
Interaction,
26
(1), 99–128. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schegloff, E. A. (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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence
organization in
interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Searle, J. R., & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Speech
acts and illocutionary logic. In D. Vanderveken (Ed.), Logic,
thought and
action (pp. 109–132). Dordrecht: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech
acts: an essay in the Philosophy of
Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Searle, J. R. (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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (Eds.) (2013). The
handbook of Conversation
Analysis. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stivers, T. (2004). “No
no no” and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human
Communication
Research,
30
(2), 260–293. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stivers, T., & Hayashi, M. (2010). Transformative
answers: one way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in
Society,
39
(1), 1–25. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing
response. Research on Language and Social
Interaction,
43
(1), 3–31. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Thornburg, L., & Panther, K. (1997). Speech
act metonymies. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic
Science,
4
1, 205–222. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zinken, J. (2016). Requesting
responsibility. The morality of grammar in Polish and English family
interaction. New York: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Hänggi, Philipp & Lorenza Mondada
2024.
“What is this?”: Multisensorial explorations of food with and without sight.
Appetite ► pp. 107530 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Fele, Giolo
2023.
The Organization of Emergency Calls. In
Emergency Communication,
► pp. 11 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.