Cover not available
Article published In:
Interaction Studies
Vol. 20:2 (2019) ► pp.339–361

Do we X, Should/Shall we X, Let’s X

Three formats to propose actions in collaborative project-making at the computer

| University of Oulu
This article studies the formats Do we X, Should/Shall we X, and Let’s X in order to deepen our understanding of face-to-face collaborative interactions at the computer. We use 6 hours of data of university students collaborating in British and American English, and our methodology is Conversation Analysis. We demonstrate that the participants display and orient to the immediacy/remoteness of the task, as well as their entitlement to carry out the proposed task, when they put forward a proposed action. To do so, they use specific formats, specific verbs, and display specific tasks depending on their needs, emerging from the unfolding of the collaboration. We argue that collaboration is not only a matter of organising the accomplishment of a set of tasks, but also of displaying what kind of task is being proposed, and to what extent the speaker is entitled to the proposed task.
Keywords: Conversation Analysis, collaborative interaction, proposals, format, entitlement
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and methodology
  • 3.Organising remote tasks with the format Do we X
  • 4.Negotiating immediate tasks with the format Should/Shall we X
  • 5.Displaying high entitlement to proposed immediate tasks with the format Let’s X
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 7 October 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.17013.sok
References (36)
References
Asmuβ, B. & Oshima, S. (2012). Negotiation of entitlement in proposal sequences. Discourse Studies 14(1) 67–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9:4 403–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentley, R.; Hughes, J. A.; Randall, D.; Rodden, T.; Sawyer, P.; Shapiro, D. Z. & Sommerville, I. (1992). Ethnographically-informed systems design for air traffic control. CSCW ’92: Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work. (pp. 123–129). New York: ACM. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charles, C., Gafni, A. & Whelan, T. (1997). Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (Or it takes at least two to tango). Social Science & Medicine 441: 681–692. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics, Special issue on “Approaches to grammar for Interactional Linguistics”, edited by Ritva Laury, Marja Etelämäki & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, pp. 623–648. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Craven, A. and Potter, J.. (2010). Directives: entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, 12 (4), pp. 419–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curl, T. (2006). Offers of assistance: constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics 381, 1257–1280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curl, T. & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and Action: A Comparison of Two Forms of Requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41:2, 129–153, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dourish, P. & Bellotti, V. (1992). Awareness and coordination in shared workplaces. CSCW ’92, Proceedings of the 1992 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. ACM New-York. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J. W.; Schuetze-Coburn, S.; Cumming, S. & Paolino, D. (1993). Outline of discourse transcription. J. A. Edwards & Lampert, M. D. (eds.), Talking data, Transcription and coding in discourse research. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp. 45–89.Google Scholar
Ford, C., Fox, B. & Thompson, S. (2003). Social interaction and grammar. In: Tomasello, M. (Ed.), The New Psychology of Language, Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 119–144.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. (2007). Principles Shaping grammatical practices: an exploration. Discourse Studies, 91:299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, B. & Heinemann, T. (2016). Rethinking format: an examination of requests. Language in Society 451, 499–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardner, R. & Levy, M. (2012). Liminality in multitasking: Where talk and task collide in computer collaborations. Language is Society, Vol. 41, issue 5, pp. 557–587. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. (2006). Participation, Affect, and Trajectory in Family Directive/Response Sequences”, Text & Talk, vol. 26, no. 4–5, pp. 515–543. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. H. (1992). Assessment and the construction of context. In: Duranti, A., Goodwin, C. (Eds.), Rethinking Context, Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 147–190.Google Scholar
Harper, R. R., Hughes, J. A. & Shapiro, D. Z. (1989). Working in harmony: An examination of computer technology in air traffic control, in P. Wilson, et al. (eds.): ECSCW’89: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 13–15September 1989, Gatwick, London. London, pp. 73–86.Google Scholar
Heap, James L. (1992). Normative order in collaborative editing. Text in context: contributions to ethnomethodology. Eds. Graham Watson, Robert M. Seiler. Newbury Park: SAGE.Google Scholar
Heath, C. & Luff, P. (1992). Collaboration and control: crisis management and multimedia technology in London underground line control rooms. Journal of Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Vol. 1, No. 1. 24–48.Google Scholar
Heinemann, T. (2006). “Will you or can’t you?”: Displaying entitlement in interrogative requests. Journal of Pragmatics 381, 1081–1104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in Action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction. Vol. 45 (1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (1987). Establishing agreement: an analysis of proposal-acceptant sequences. Dordrecht and Providence: Foris, 1987.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis: Principles, practices and applications. Cambridge (UK): Polity Press; Oxford (UK) & Malden (MA): Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner, Gene H. (Ed). Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. (pp: 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keisanen, T. & Kärkkäinen, E. 2014. A multimodal analysis of compliment sequences activity in everyday English interactions. Pragmatics 24(3): 649–672. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keyton, J., Ford Debra, J. & Smith Faye, I. (2008). A Mesolevel Communicative Model of Collaboration. Communication Theory 181: 376–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. (2012). I thought it was very interesting. Conversational formats for taking a stance. In Cornillie, Bert & Paola Pietrandrea (eds.), Modality at work: Cognitive, interactional and textual functions of modal markers. Journal of Pragmatics 44(15), 2194–2210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linde, C. (1988). Who’s in charge here? Cooperative work and authority negotiation in police helicopter missions. Proceedings of the 1988 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work, 52–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation, Language, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, K. & Bannon, L. (2013). Constructing CSCW: The First Quarter Century. Computer Supported-Cooperative Work (2013) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, M. (2012). Establishing joint decisions in a dyad. Discourse Studies 14 (6), pp. 1–25. Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, M. & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic Authority in Interaction: the Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide. Research on Language & Social Interaction, Vol 45–3, pp. 297–321 (25). Routledge, Tayler & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing Response. Research on Language & Social Interaction, Informa UK Limited, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 3–31.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. & Sidnell, J. (2005). Introduction: Multimodal Interaction. Semiotica 2005 (156):1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Proposals for Activity Collaboration. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49:2. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uhlířová, L. (1994). On the role of the PC as a relevant object in face-to-face communication. Journal of Pragmatics Vol. 22 (5). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Rautiainen, Iira, Pentti Haddington & Antti Kamunen
2023. Nudging Questions as Devices for Prompting Courses of Action and Negotiating Deontic (A)symmetry in UN Military Observer Training. In Complexity of Interaction, ► pp. 217 ff. DOI logo
Waring, Hansun Zhang
2023. Presenting a united front at the dinner table: The case of merged speakership and merged recipiency. Language in Society ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 august 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.