Chapter published in:
Fixed Expressions: Building language structure and social action
Edited by Ritva Laury and Tsuyoshi Ono
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 315] 2020
► pp. 99–132

English why don’t you X as a formulaic expression

| University of California, Santa Barbara
| University of Helsinki
In this chapter we examine a formulaic expression in English, why don’t you + action verb/predicate (= WDY). We show that WDY is used in everyday conversation to carry out the social work of giving advice, as in why don't you try taking it again? We argue that this construction is a formulaic expression because it is not understood compositionally: the WDY format does not ask a question, but proposes a future action that the speaker is recommending that the recipient undertake. Our chapter explores the implicativeness of WDY for subsequent talk, and reveals the intricate relationship between the grammar of WDY and the social work that it is used to do.
Keywords: formulaic expression, conversation, giving advice, grammar, reduction, prosody, dynamic, agentive, deontic, account
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.315.05tho
References

References

Bolden, Galina B., and Jeffrey D. Robinson
2011 “Soliciting Accounts with ‘Why’-Interrogatives in Conversation.” Journal of Communication 61 (1): 94–119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight
1976 “Meaning and Memory.” Forum Linguisticum 1:1–14.Google Scholar
Butler, Carly W., Jonathan Potter, Susan Danby, Michael Emmison, and Alexa Hepburn
2010 “Advice Implicative Interrogatives: Building ‘Client-centered Support’ in a Children’s Helpline.” Social Psychology Quarterly 73 (3): 265–287. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2000 “The Phonology of the Lexicon: Evidence from Lexical Diffusion.” In Usage-Based Models of Language, ed. by Michael Barlow, and Suzanne Kemmer, 65–85. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2001 “Frequency Effects on French Liaison.” In Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, ed. by Joan L. Bybee, and Paul J. Hopper, 337–359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 “Sequentiality as the Basis of Constituent Structure.” In The Evolution of Language from Pre-language, ed. by Talmy Givón, and Bertram Malle, 109–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 “From Usage to Grammar: The Mind’s Response to Repetition.” Language 82 (4): 529–551. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Richard File-Muriel, and Ricardo Napoleao de Souza
2016 “Special Reduction: A Usage-based Approach.” Language and Cognition 8: 421–446. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and William Pagliuca
1987 “The Evolution of Future Meaning.” In Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. by Anna Giacalone Ramat, Onofrio Carruba, and Giuliano Bernini, 109–122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Joanne Scheibman
1999 “The Effect of Usage on Degrees of Constituency: The Reduction of don’t in English.” Linguistics 37 (4): 575–596. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1994 Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Corrigan, Roberta, Edith Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali, and Kathleen Wheatley
(eds) 2009 Formulaic Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
2001 “Interactional Prosody: High onsets in Reason-for-the-call Turns.” Language in Society 30, 29–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004a “Prosody and Sequence Organization in English Conversation: The Case of New Beginnings.” In Sound Patterns in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Cecilia E. Ford, 335–376. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004b “Prosodische Stilisierungen im Gespräch (Prosodic stylizations in conversation).” In Zwischen Literatur und Anthropologie: Diskurse, Medien, Performanzen (Between Literature and Anthropology: Discourses, media, performances), ed. by Aleida Assmann, Ulrich Gaier, and Gisela Trommsdorff, 315–337. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
2014 “What does Grammar Tell us about Action?” Pragmatics 24 (3): 623–647. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting
2018 Interactional Linguistics. Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Sandra A. Thompson
Forthcoming. “Action Ascription in Everyday Advice-giving Sequences.” In Action Ascription: Interaction in context ed. by Arnulf Depperman, and Michael Haugh Cambridge Cambridge University Press
Curl, Traci S., and Paul Drew
2008 “Contingency and Action: A Comparison of Two Forms of Requesting.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (2): 129–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erman, Britt, and Beatrice Warren
2000 “The Idiom Principle and the Open Choice Principle.” Text 20 (1): 29–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1989 “Grammatical Construction Theory and the Familiar Dichotomies.” In Language Processing in Social Context, ed. by Rainer Dietrich, and Carl F. Graumann, 17–38. Amsterdam: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay, and Mary C. O’Connor
1988 “Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of let alone .” Language 64, 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T.
2001 Syntax: An Introduction, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne
1996 “The Prosodic Contextualization of Moral Work: An Analysis of Reproaches in ‘why’-Formats.” In Prosody in Conversation, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Margret Selting, 271–302. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John
1994 “Ritualization and the Development of Language.” In Perspectives on Grammaticalization, ed. by William Pagliuca, 3–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hepburn, Alexa, and Galina Bolden
2013 “The Conversation Analytic Approach to Transcription.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 57–76. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Heritage, John, and Sue Sefi
1992 “Dilemmas of Advice: Aspects of the Delivery and Reception of Advice in Interactions between Health Visitors and First-time Mothers.” In Talk at work. Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. by Paul Drew, and John Heritage, 359-417. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul
1987 “Emergent Grammar.” Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: 139–157. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 “The Openness of Grammatical Constructions.” Chicago Linguistic Society 40: 239–256.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Lerner, Gene, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul, and Charles J. Fillmore
1999 “Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y? Construction.” Language 75: 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 Action formation and ascription. In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 103–130. Malden MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mulder, Jean, and Sandra A. Thompson
2008 “The Grammaticization of but as a Final Particle in English Conversation.” In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, ed. by Ritva Laury, 179–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ogden, Richard, Auli Hakulinen, and Liisa Tainio
2004 “Indexing ‘no news’ with Stylization in Finnish.” In Sound Patterns in Interaction. Cross-Linguistic Studies from Conversation, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Cecilia E. Ford, 299–334. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pawley, Andrew
2007 “Developments in the Study of Formulaic Language since 1970: A Personal View.” In Phraseology and Culture in English, ed. by Paul Skandera, 3–48. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pawley, Andrew, and Frances H. Syder
1983 “Two Puzzles for Linguistic Theory: Nativelike Selection and Nativelike Fluency.” In Language and Communication, ed. by Jack C. Richards, and Richard W. Schmidt, 191–268. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen
1981 “Toward a Typology of Given-new Information.” In Radical Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 223–255. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pudlinski, Christopher
2002 “Accepting and Rejecting Advice as Competent Peers.” Discourse Studies 4, 481–499. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey
2016 “Accountability in Social Interaction.” In Accountability in Social Interaction, ed. by Jeffrey Robinson, 1–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan, and Mark Liberman
1975 “The intonational disambiguation of indirect speech acts.” Chicago Linguistic Society 11: 487–497.Google Scholar
Shaw, Chloe
2012  Advice Giving in Telephone Interactions between Mothers and their Young Adult Daughters . PhD thesis, Loughborough University.
Shaw, Chloe, and Alexa Hepburn
2013 “Managing the Moral Implications of Advice in Informal Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46 (4): 344–362. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, Chloe, Jonathan Potter, and Alexa Hepburn
2015 “Advice-implicative Actions: Using Interrogatives and Assessments to Deliver Advice in Mundane Conversation.” Discourse Studies 17 (3): 317–342. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, John
1991 Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2017 ”Imperative Turns at Talk: An Introduction.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa, and Anssi Peräkylä
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, Tanya, John Heritage, Rebecca K. Barnes, Rose McCabe, Laura Thompson, and Merran Toerien
2017 “Treatment Recommendations as Actions.” Health Communication 33 (11): 1335–1344. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah
1987a “Repetition in Conversation as Spontaneous Formulaicity.” Text 7 (3): 215–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1987b “Repetition in Conversation: Toward a Poetics of Talk.” Language 63 (3): 574–605. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Waring, Hansun Zhang
2005 “Peer Tutoring in a Graduate Writing Center: Identity, Expertise and Advice Resisting.” Applied Linguistics 26: 141–168. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wray, Alison
2002 Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 Formulaic Language: Pushing the Boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wray, Allison, and Michael R. Perkins
1999 “The Function of Formulaic Language: An Integrated Model.” Language and Communication 20: 1–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie
2008 Rethinking Idiomaticity: A Usage–based Approach. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
2009 “Converging Evidence from Corpus and Experimental Data to Capture Idiomaticity.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistics Theory 5 (1): 131–159.Google Scholar