Cover not available
Article published In:
Approaches to grammar for interactional linguistics
[Pragmatics 23:3] 2013
► pp. 519–544

Constructing a proposal as a thought

A way to manage problems in the initiation of joint decision-making in finnish workplace interaction

Drawing on fifteen video-recorded planning meetings as data, and on conversation analysis as a method, I examine the interactional import of the common Finnish practice of constructing a proposal as a thought. As a point of departure, I consider two different types of conditional utterances in which a speaker presents a plan: (1) ‘asking conditionals’ (jos ‘what if’ prefaced declarative conditionals and interrogative conditionals) and (2) ‘stating conditionals’ (declarative conditionals). While asking conditionals mark the plan as contingent on the recipient’s approval and involve a straightforward request for the recipient to engage in joint decision-making about the proposed plan, stating conditionals are regularly treated as informings about plans in which the recipients have actually no word to say. However, when asking and stating conditionals are prefaced with references to the speakers’ thoughts (mä aattelin et ‘I was thinking that’), the projected responses and sequential trajectories are more open-ended: The participants have the opportunity to share the responsibility, not only for what is to be decided with respect to the proposed plan, but also for what is to be jointly decided upon in the first place. Constructing a proposal as a thought seems thus to be a practice with which participants may enable the symmetrical distribution of deontic rights at the very beginning of joint decision-making sequences.

Keywords: Conversation analysis, Decision-making, Deontic rights, Reported thought, Proposals, Mitigation
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 1 September 2013
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.23.3.07ste
References
Arminen, Ilkka
(2005) Institutional interaction: Studies of talk at work. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Barnes, Rebecca, and Duncan Moss
(2007) Communicating a feeling: The social organization of ‘private thoughts’. Discourse Studies 91: 123-148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bella, Spyridoula
(2011) Mitigation and politeness in Greek invitation refusals: Effects of length of residence in the target community and intensity of interaction on non-native speakers’ performance. Journal of Pragmatics 431: 1718-1740. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
(1987) Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different. Journal of Pragmatics 111: 131-146. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson
(1978 [1987]) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Byon, Andrew S
(2006) The role of linguistic indirectness and honorifics in achieving linguistic politeness in Korean requests. Journal of Politeness Research 21: 247-276.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caffi, Claudia
(1999) On mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics 311: 881-909. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Charles, Cathy, A. Gafni, and T. Whelan
(1997) Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (Or it takes at least two to tango). Social Science and Medicine 441: 681-692. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H
(1979) Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Psychology 111: 430-477. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert, and Richard Gerrig
(1990) Quotations as demonstrations. Language 661: 764-805. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
(1999) Coherent voicing: On prosody in conversational reported speech. In W. Bublitz, and U. Lenk (eds.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse: How to create it and how to describe it.Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 11-32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Assessing and accounting. In E. Holt, and R. Clift (eds.), Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 81–119.Google Scholar
forthcoming) What does grammar tell us about action? In R. Laury, M. Etelämäki, and E. Couper-Kuhlen (eds.) Special issue of Pragmatics on “Approaches to grammar for interactional linguistics” DOI logo
Curl, Traci S., and Paul Drew
(2008) Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction 411: 129-153. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul, and Elizabeth Holt
(1995) Idiomatic expressions and their role in the organization of topic transition in conversation. In M. Everaert, E.-J. van der Linden, A. Schenk, and R. Schreuder (eds.), Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives.Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 117-132.Google Scholar
Duncan, Starkey, and George Niederehe
(1974) On signalling that it's your turn to speak. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 101: 234-247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Derek
(1997) Discourse and Cognition. London: Sage.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1999) Emotion discourse. Culture and Psychology 51: 271-291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Derek, and Jonathan Potter
(1992) Discursive Psychology. London: Sage.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Eelen, Gino
(2001) A critique of politeness theories. Manchester: St. Jerome’s.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Faerch, Claus, and Gabriele Kasper
(1989) Internal and external modification in interlanguage request realization. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, and G. Kasper (eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies.Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 221-247.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce
(1980) Conversational mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics 4.4: 341–350. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1990) Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 141: 219-236. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy
(2005) Context as other minds: The pragmatics of sociality, cognition and communication. Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving
(1955) On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes 181: 213-231.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne
(1999) Polyphony and the “layering of voices” in reported dialogues: An analysis of the use of prosodic devices in everyday reported speech. Journal of Pragmatics 311: 685-708. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haakana, Markku
(2007) Reported thought in complaint stories. In E. Holt, and R. Clift (eds.), Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 150-178.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, M. Vilkuna, R. Korhonen, V. Koivisto, T.R. Heinonen, and I. Alho
(2004) Iso suomen kielioppi [The Comprehensive Grammar of Finnish]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Hepburn, Alexa, and Sally Wiggins
(2007) Discursive research: Themes and debates. In A. Hepburn and S. Wiggins (eds.), Discursive research in practice: New approaches to psychology and interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-28. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John
(1984) Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
(2011) Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Emphatic moments in interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada, and J. Steensig (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 159-183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond
(2005) The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 681: 15-38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
House, Juliane, and Gabriele Kasper
(1981) Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (ed.), Conversational routines. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 157-185.Google Scholar
Houtkoop, Hanneke
(1987) Establishing agreement: An analysis of proposal-acceptance sequences. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.  BoP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1990) Accounting for proposals. Journal of Pragmatics 141: 111-124. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
(2004) “At first I thought:” A normalizing device for extraordinary events. In G.H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation.Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 131-167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise
(2012) “I thought it was very interesting:” Conversational formats for taking a stance. Journal of Pragmatics 441: 2194-2210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin
(1973) The logic of politeness; or, minding your p’s and q’s. Proceedings of the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society , pp. 292-305.  BoP
Laury, Ritva
(2012) Syntactically non-integrated Finnish jos ‘if’ -conditional clauses as directives. Discourse Processes 491: 213-242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey
(1983) Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Anna
(1999) Language as social action: Grammar, prosody, and interaction in Swedish conversation. Ph.D. thesis. Uppsala University, Uppsala.
Lindström, Jan, and Camilla Lindholm
(2009) “May I ask:” Question frames in institutional interaction. In M. Haakana, M. Laakso, and J. Lindström (eds.), Talk in interaction: Comparative dimensions.Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society, pp. 180-205.Google Scholar
Linell, Per
(2009) Rethinking language, mind and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
Lukes, Steven
(1978) Power and authority. In T. Bottomore, and R. Nisbet (eds.), A history of sociological analysis. London: Heinemann, pp. 633-676.Google Scholar
Meier, Christoph
(1997) Arbeitsbesprechungen: Interaktionsstrukturen, Interaktions-dynamik und Konsequenzen einer sozialen Form. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mills, Sara
(2003) Gender and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Myers, Greg
(1998) Displaying opinions: Topic and disagreement in focus groups. Language in Society 271: 85-111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004) Matters of opinion: Talking about public ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Niemelä, Maarit
(2005) Voiced direct reported speech in conversational storytelling: Sequential patterns of stance taking. SKY Journal of Linguistics 181: 197-221.Google Scholar
Oreström, Bengt
(1983) Turn-taking in English conversation. Lund, SE: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita
(1984) Pursuing a response. In J.M. Atkinson, and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 152-164.Google Scholar
Potter, Jonathan
(2006) Cognition and conversation. Discourse Studies 81: 131-140. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Potter, Jonathan, and Claudia Puchta
(2007) Mind, mousse and moderation. In A. Hepburn, and S. Wiggins (eds.), Discursive research in practice: New approaches to psychology and interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 104-123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey
(2003) Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 681: 939-967. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey, and John Heritage
(2006) The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society 351: 677-705. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne, and Deborah Lange
(1991) The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech 661: 227-278. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
(1992) Lectures on conversation, Vol. 1 and 21. Edited by Gail Jefferson, with an introduction by Emanuel A. Schegloff. Malden: Blackwell.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A
(2007) Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R
(1976) A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 51: 1-23. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack
(2006) Coordinating gesture, gaze and talk in re-enactments. Research on Language and Social Interaction 391: 377-409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael
(2010) “Direct” and “indirect” communicative acts in semiotic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 421: 337-353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
(2001) Responding in conversation: A study of response particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen
(2000) Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In H. Spencer-Oatey (2000), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures. London: Continuum, pp. 98-120.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2002) Managing rapport in talk: Using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of Pragmatic 341: 529-545. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa
(2012a) Establishing joint decisions in a dyad. Discourse Studies 141: 779-803. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012b) Prosodic salience and the emergence of new decisions: On the prosody of approval in Finnish workplace interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 441: 843-862. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa, and Anssi Peräkylä
(2012) Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction 451: 297-321. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Makoto Hayashi
(2010) Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society 391: 1-25. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Strong, Michael, and Wendy Baron
(2004) An analysis of mentoring conversations with beginning teachers: Suggestions and responses. Teaching and Teacher Education 201: 47-57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tykkyläinen, Tuula, and Minna Laakso
(2009) Five-year-old girls negotiating pretend play: Proposals with the Finnish particle jooko . Journal of Pragmatics 421: 242-256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vásquez, Camilla, and Alfredo Urzúa
(2009) Reported speech and reported mental states in mentoring meetings: Exploring novice teacher identities. Research on Language and Social Interaction 421: 1-19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard
(2003) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Yngve, Victor H
(1970) On getting a word in edgewise. Papers from the sixth regional meeting Chicago Linguistic Society , pp. 567-577.  BoP
Cited by

Cited by 39 other publications

Baldauf-Quilliatre, Heike & Isabel Colón De Carvajal
2021. Séquences de guidage dans des sessions de jeux vidéo : comment co-construire la programmation d’une action dans l’interaction ?. Langages N° 221:1 ► pp. 107 ff. DOI logo
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Marja Etelämäki
2015. Nominated actions and their targeted agents in Finnish conversational directives. Journal of Pragmatics 78 ► pp. 7 ff. DOI logo
Ekberg, Katie & Amanda LeCouteur
2015. Clients’ resistance to therapists’ proposals: Managing epistemic and deontic status. Journal of Pragmatics 90 ► pp. 12 ff. DOI logo
Hao, Quanxi, Hui Guo, Chuntao Li & Shuai Yang
2022. Subsequent Actions Engendered by the Absence of an Immediate Response to the Proposal in Mandarin Mundane Talk. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Hofstetter, Emily
2020. Thinking with the Body: Embodying Thinking as a Practice in Board Games. In Discursive Psychology and Embodiment, ► pp. 247 ff. DOI logo
Huang, Xu & Yongping Ran
2023.  Nǐ kànzhe bàn ba: negotiating complaint solutions in e-shopping service encounters. Text & Talk 0:0 DOI logo
Koskinen, Emmi, Samuel Tuhkanen, Milla Järvensivu, Enikö Savander, Taina Valkeapää, Kaisa Valkia, Elina Weiste & Melisa Stevanovic
2021. The Psychophysiological Experience of Solving Moral Dilemmas Together: An Interdisciplinary Comparison Between Participants With and Without Depression. Frontiers in Communication 6 DOI logo
Laury, Ritva & Marja-Liisa Helasvuo
2020. Chapter 3. The emergence and routinization of complex syntactic patterns formed with ajatella ‘think’ and tietää ‘know’ in Finnish talk-in-interaction. In Emergent Syntax for Conversation [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 32], ► pp. 55 ff. DOI logo
Laury, Ritva, Marja-Liisa Helasvuo & Janica Rauma
2020. Chapter 6. When an expression becomes fixed. In Fixed Expressions [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 315], ► pp. 133 ff. DOI logo
Lindström, Jan, Camilla Lindholm & Ritva Laury
2016. The interactional emergence of conditional clauses as directives: constructions, trajectories and sequences of actions. Language Sciences 58 ► pp. 8 ff. DOI logo
Magnusson, Simon
2021. Establishing jointness in proximal multiparty decision-making: The case of collaborative writing. Journal of Pragmatics 181 ► pp. 32 ff. DOI logo
Magnusson, Simon & Melisa Stevanovic
2023. Sexual consent as an interactional achievement: Overcoming ambiguities and social vulnerabilities in the initiations of sexual activities. Discourse Studies 25:1 ► pp. 68 ff. DOI logo
Mondada, Lorenza
2016. Going to write. Language and Dialogue 6:1 ► pp. 140 ff. DOI logo
Mondada, Lorenza & Kimmo Svinhufvud
2016. Writing-in-interaction. Language and Dialogue 6:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Nissi, Riikka
2015. From entry proposals to a joint statement: Practices of shared text production in multiparty meeting interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 79 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
2016. Spelling out consequences: Conditional constructions as a means to resist proposals in organisational planning process. Discourse Studies 18:3 ► pp. 311 ff. DOI logo
Ong, Ben, Scott Barnes & Niels Buus
2021. Downgrading Deontic Authority in Open Dialogue Reflection Proposals: A Conversation Analysis. Family Process 60:4 ► pp. 1217 ff. DOI logo
2022. Developing multiple perspectives by eliding agreement: A conversation analysis of Open Dialogue reflections. Discourse Studies 24:1 ► pp. 47 ff. DOI logo
Paananen, Jenny, Melisa Stevanovic & Taina Valkeapää
2021. Expressing thinking in institutional interaction: Stancetaking in mental health rehabilitation group discussions. Journal of Pragmatics 184 ► pp. 152 ff. DOI logo
Pick, Ina
2022. Der Handlungskomplex Entscheiden am Beispiel der „Unterstützten Entscheidungs-findung“ in der rechtlichen Betreuung. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik 2022:77 ► pp. 253 ff. DOI logo
Pälli, Pekka & Esa Lehtinen
2014. Making objectives common in performance appraisal interviews. Language & Communication 39 ► pp. 92 ff. DOI logo
Ristimäki, Hanna-Leena, Sanni Tiitinen, Pirjo Juvonen-Posti & Johanna Ruusuvuori
2020. Collaborative decision-making in return-to-work negotiations. Journal of Pragmatics 170 ► pp. 189 ff. DOI logo
Stevanovic, Melisa
2015. Displays of uncertainty and proximal deontic claims: The case of proposal sequences. Journal of Pragmatics 78 ► pp. 84 ff. DOI logo
2017. Chapter 12. Managing compliance in violin instruction. In Imperative Turns at Talk [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 30], ► pp. 357 ff. DOI logo
2018. Social deontics: A nano-level approach to human power play. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 48:3 ► pp. 369 ff. DOI logo
2020. Chapter 5. Mobilizing student compliance. In Mobilizing Others [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 33], ► pp. 115 ff. DOI logo
2021. Three Multimodal Action Packages in Responses to Proposals During Joint Decision-Making: The Embodied Delivery of Positive Assessments Including the Finnish Particle Ihan “Quite”. Frontiers in Communication 6 DOI logo
2021. Deontic authority and the maintenance of lay and expert identities during joint decision making: Balancing resistance and compliance. Discourse Studies 23:5 ► pp. 670 ff. DOI logo
Stevanovic, Melisa & Maria Frick
2014. Singing in interaction. Social Semiotics 24:4 ► pp. 495 ff. DOI logo
Stevanovic, Melisa & Sonja E. Koski
2018. Intersubjectivity and the domains of social interaction: proposal of a cross-sectional approach. Psychology of Language and Communication 22:1 ► pp. 39 ff. DOI logo
Stevanovic, Melisa, Samuel Tuhkanen, Milla Järvensivu, Emmi Koskinen, Enikö Savander, Kaisa Valkia & Dennis Tay
2021. Physiological responses to proposals during dyadic decision-making conversations. PLOS ONE 16:1 ► pp. e0244929 ff. DOI logo
Stevanovic, Melisa, Samuel Tuhkanen, Milla Järvensivu, Emmi Koskinen, Camilla Lindholm, Jenny Paananen, Enikö Savander, Taina Valkeapää & Kaisa Valkiaranta
2022. Making Food Decisions Together: Physiological and Affective Underpinnings of Relinquishing Preferences and Reaching Decisions. SAGE Open 12:1 ► pp. 215824402210780 ff. DOI logo
Stevanovic, Melisa, Taina Valkeapää, Elina Weiste & Camilla Lindholm
2022. Joint decision making in a mental health rehabilitation community: The impact of support workers’ proposal design on client responsiveness. Counselling Psychology Quarterly 35:1 ► pp. 129 ff. DOI logo
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox & Chase Wesley Raymond
2021. The grammar of proposals for joint activities. Interactional Linguistics 1:1 ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo
Tiitinen, Sanni & Tea Lempiälä
2022. Two Social Functions of Stepwise Transitions When Discussing Ideas in Workplace Meetings. International Journal of Business Communication 59:3 ► pp. 355 ff. DOI logo
Tuomenoksa, Asta, Suzanne Beeke & Anu Klippi
2022. People with aphasia and their family members proposing joint future activities in everyday conversations: A conversation analytic study. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders DOI logo
Webb, Joseph, David Wilkins & Richard Martin
2022. (How) are decisions made in child and family social work supervisions?. Qualitative Social Work 21:6 ► pp. 1252 ff. DOI logo
Weiste, Elina, Sari Käpykangas, Lise-Lotte Uusitalo & Melisa Stevanovic
2020. Being Heard, Exerting Influence, or Knowing How to Play the Game? Expectations of Client Involvement among Social and Health Care Professionals and Clients. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17:16 ► pp. 5653 ff. DOI logo
Weiste, Elina, Miira Niska, Taina Valkeapää & Melisa Stevanovic
2022. Goal Setting in Mental Health Rehabilitation: References to Competence and Interest as Resources for Negotiating Goals. Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation and Mental Health 9:4 ► pp. 409 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 february 2023. 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.