Part of
Enabling Human Conduct: Studies of talk-in-interaction in honor of Emanuel A. SchegloffEdited by Geoffrey Raymond, Gene H. Lerner and John Heritage
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 273] 2017
► pp. 125–143
Edited by Geoffrey Raymond, Gene H. Lerner and John Heritage
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 273] 2017
► pp. 125–143
Accepting remote proposals
This study focuses on the preferred sequence trajectory of remote proposals. A remote proposal is a request, invitation, or related proposal that cannot be immediately satisfied. The data consists of 34 remote proposal sequences drawn from recordings of Swedish telephone conversations. The analysis shows that although remote proposals are formatted as yes no interrogatives, an affirmative response token is insufficient as a claim of alignment with the proposal. An additional unit of talk is required where the accepter enacts a stance that demonstrates a commitment to fulfill the remote proposal.
Keywords: Alignment, Conversation Analysis, Grammar And Interaction, Remote Proposals, Responses, Sequence Organization, Swedish Conversation
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Remote proposals
- 3.Data
- 4.The social and syntactic design of remote proposals
- 5.Analysis
- 6.Concluding remarks
-
Notes -
References
References (24)
Bergmann, Jörg. 1993. “Alarmiertes Verstehen. Kommunikation in Feuerwehrnotrufen [Alarming understandings. Communication in calls to the fire department].” In Wirklichkeit im Deutungsprozeß. Verstehen und Methoden in den Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften [Reality in Interpretive Processes. Understanding and Methods in the Cultural and Social Sciences], ed. by Thomas Jung and Stefan Müller-Doohm, 283–328. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.
Clayman, Steven E., and John Heritage. 2014. “Benefactors and Beneficiaries: Benefactive Status and Stance in the Management of Offers and Requests.” In Requesting in Social Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Paul Drew, 55–86. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice–Hall.
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
. 1988. “Explanations as Accounts: A Conversation Analytic Perspective.” In Understanding Everyday Explanation: A Casebook of Methods, ed. by Charles Antaki, 127–144. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. "The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Assessment Sequences." Social Psychology Quarterly 68 (1): 15–38.
. 2012. “Navigating Epistemic Landscapes: Acquiescence, Agency and Resistance in Responses to Polar Questions.” In Questions. Formal, Functional, and Interactional Perspectives, ed. by Jan P. De Ruiter, 179–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Houtkoop Steenstra, Hanneke. 1987. Establishing Agreement: An Analysis of Proposal-Acceptance Sequences. Doctoral dissertation. Universiteit van Amsterdam. Dordrecht: Foris.
Jefferson, Gail. 1983. “Notes on Some Orderlinesses of Overlap Onset.” In Discourse Analysis and Natural Rhetoric, ed. by Valentina D'Urso and Paola Leonardi, 11–38. Padua: Cleup Editore.
Labov, William, and David Fanshel. 1977. Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.
Lindström, Anna. 1994. “Identification and Recognition in Swedish Telephone Conversation Openings.” Language in Society 23: 231–252.
. 1997. Designing Social Actions: Grammar, Prosody, and Interaction in Swedish Conversation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, California.
Pomerantz, Anita M. 1975. Second Assessments: A Study of Some Features of Agreements/Disagreements. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Irvine, California.
. 1984. “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2000. The Structure of Responding. Type-Conforming and Noncomforming Responses to YNIs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, California.
. 2003. “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Type Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review 68: 939–967.
Sacks, Harvey. 1987 [1973]. “On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation.” In Talk and Social Organization, ed. by Graham Button and John Lee, 54–69. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1972. Sequencing in conversational openings. In Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication, ed. by J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes, 346–380. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. A Primer in Conversation Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Harvey Sacks. 1973. “Opening up Closings.” Semiotica 8: 289–327.
Stevanovic, Melisa, and Anssi Peräkylä. 2012. “Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45: 297–321.
Stevanovic, Melisa. 2013. “Deontic Rights in Interaction: A Conversation Analytic Study on Authority and Cooperation.” Publications of the Department of Social Research 2013:10. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Social Research, University of Helsinki.
Zimmerman, Don H. 2004. “Closing Matters.” Paper presented at the
10th Annual CLIC-LISO Conference
, May 13–15.
Cited by (27)
Cited by 27 other publications
Alshammari, Bandar & Michael Haugh
2024. Troubles-Complaints and the Overall Structural Organization of Troubles-Remedy Sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction 57:2 ► pp. 215 ff. 
Heritage, John & Steven E. Clayman
2024. Making Arrangements: A Sketch of a ‘Big Package’. Research on Language and Social Interaction 57:3 ► pp. 279 ff.
Hiramoto, Takeshi
2024. Framing offer-related actions as assistance at jewelry stores in Japan. Discourse Studies 26:4 ► pp. 481 ff.
Löfgren, Agnes
2024.
The Interactional Histories of
Performance Bodies
: From Describing to Depicting Proposed Ideas at Opera Rehearsals
. Research on Language and Social Interaction 57:3 ► pp. 301 ff.
Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula & Angeliki Alvanoudi
2024. Polar answers. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 34:3 ► pp. 447 ff.
Bolden, Galina B., John Heritage & Marja-Leena Sorjonen
2023. Chapter 1. Introduction. In Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 35], ► pp. 1 ff.
Clayman, Steven E & Heidi Kevoe-Feldman
2023. Dispatching First Responders: Language Practices and the Dispatcher’s Operational Role in Radio Encounters With Police Officers. Discourse & Society 34:5 ► pp. 547 ff.
Harjunpää, Katariina & Ana Cristina Ostermann
2023. Chapter 3. Responding to polar questions in Brazilian Portuguese. In Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 35], ► pp. 76 ff.
Löfgren, Agnes & Emily Hofstetter
2023. Introversive semiosis in action: depictions in opera rehearsals. Social Semiotics 33:3 ► pp. 601 ff.
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.
Raymond, Geoffrey, Jie Chen & Kevin A. Whitehead
2023. Sequential Standoffs in Police Encounters With the Public. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 42:5-6 ► pp. 653 ff.
Vatanen, Anna & Pentti Haddington
2023. Multiactivity in adult-child interaction: accounts resolving conflicting courses of action in request sequences. Text & Talk 43:2 ► pp. 263 ff.
Diepeveen, Aafke, Jan Svennevig & Paweł Urbanik
2022. Suspects’ opportunities to claim their legal rights in police investigative interviews. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 28:2
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox & Chase Wesley Raymond
Arano, Yusuke
2020. Doing reflecting: Embodied solitary confirmation of instructed enactment. Discourse Studies 22:3 ► pp. 261 ff.
Humă, Bogdana & Elizabeth Stokoe
2020. The Anatomy of First-Time and Subsequent Business-to-Business “Cold” Calls. Research on Language and Social Interaction 53:2 ► pp. 271 ff.
Humă, Bogdana, Elizabeth Stokoe & Rein Ove Sikveland
2020. Putting persuasion (back) in its interactional context. Qualitative Research in Psychology 17:3 ► pp. 357 ff.
Keevallik, Leelo
2018. Chapter 11. Making up one’s mind in second position. In Between Turn and Sequence [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 31], ► pp. 315 ff.
Rauniomaa, Mirka, Esko Lehtonen & Heikki Summala
2018. Noticings with instructional implications in post‐licence driver training. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 28:2 ► pp. 326 ff.
Seuren, Lucas M.
2018. Assessing Answers: Action Ascription in Third Position. Research on Language and Social Interaction 51:1 ► pp. 33 ff.
Haugh, Michael
Haugh, Michael
2024. Chapter 7. Ostensible offers, politeness and sincere hypocrisy. In The Pragmatics of Hypocrisy [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 343], ► pp. 162 ff.
Heinemann, Trine & Jakob Steensig
2017. Chapter 5. Three imperative action formats in Danish talk-in-interaction. In Imperative Turns at Talk [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 30], ► pp. 139 ff.
Seuren, Lucas M. & Mike Huiskes
2017. Confirmation or Elaboration: What Do Yes/No Declaratives Want?. Research on Language and Social Interaction 50:2 ► pp. 188 ff.
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
2015. What does grammar tell us about action?. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 623 ff.
Rauniomaa, Mirka & Trine Heinemann
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 october 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.