Part of
New Perspectives in Interactional Linguistic ResearchEdited by Margret Selting and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 36] 2024
► pp. 20–48
Edited by Margret Selting and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 36] 2024
► pp. 20–48
What to do next
Should I and ((Do) you) want me to in joint activities in American English
The starting point of most prior research on action formation and ascription is either a social action or a linguistic form. In contrast, our study will demonstrate analytic and methodological implications and cross-linguistic perspectives for Interactional Linguistics research of starting with a translation issue. In our paper, we compare the use of two formats that are both possible translations of the German soll ich, namely should I and ((do) you) want me to. Although both English formats elicit information that is consequential for the speaker’s agenda (cf. Couper-Kuhlen 2021), we will demonstrate that they are not only used for accomplishing different actions (e.g., different kinds of offers, requests for specification, candidate understandings), but also differ in terms of the ownership of the project this proffered action will contribute to. Our results demonstrate that translation issues within Interactional Linguistics research are not only an important methodological and analytic matter, but can also open up new perspectives with regard to cross-linguistic and cross-cultural diversity of social actions and practices for accomplishing them. Our results suggest that speakers of different languages not only differ in how specific domains of social action (e.g., offers, requests for permission) are realized, but also what sensitivities are oriented to across languages. Our study thus offers a new avenue for exploring domains of social actions and their realization across languages.
Keywords: social action format, action formation, conversation analysis, interactional linguistics, offers, project, self, other, responsibility, grammar
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Prior research and focus of the current study
- 3.Data and method
- 4.Analysis
- 4.1((Do) you) want me to
- 4.2Should I
- 5.Summary and discussion
-
Notes -
References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References
Antaki, Charles
2012 “Affiliative
and Disaffiliative Candidate
Understandings.” Discourse
Studies 14: 531–547. 
Bolden, Galina B.
2013 “Unpacking
‘Self’: Repair and Epistemics in
Conversation.” Social
Psychology
Quarterly 76: 314–342.
Clayman, Steven E., and Chase W. Raymond
2021 “ ‘You
Know’ as Invoking Alignment: A Generic Resource for Emerging
Problems of Understanding and
Affiliation.” Journal of
Pragmatics 182: 293–309.
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
2014 “What
Does Grammar Tell Us about
Action?” Pragmatics 24: 623–647.
2021 “Language
over Time: Some Old and New Uses of OKAY in American
English.” Interactional
Linguistics 1: 33–63.
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting
2018 Interactional
Linguistics: Studying Language in Social
Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Curl, Traci S.
2006 “Offers
of Assistance: Constraints on Syntactic
Design.” Journal of
Pragmatics 38: 1257–1280.
Curl, Traci S., and Paul Drew
2008 “Contingency
and Action: A Comparison of Two Forms of
Requesting.” Research on
Language and Social
Interaction 41: 129–153.
Deppermann, Arnulf, and Alexandra Gubina
2021a “Positionally-Sensitive
Action-Ascription: Uses of Kannst du X?
‘Can you X?’ in Their Sequential and Multimodal
Context.” Interactional
Linguistics 1: 183–215.
2021b “When
the Body Belies the Words: Embodied Agency with
darf/kann ich? (“may/can I?”) in
German.” Frontiers in
Communication 6: 661800.
Deppermann, Arnulf, and Julia Kaiser
2022 “Intention
Ascriptions as a Means to Coordinate Own Actions with
Others’
Actions.” In Action
Ascription in Interaction, ed.
by Arnulf Deppermann and Michael Haugh, 135–159. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dingemanse, Mark, Joe Blythe, and Tyko Dirksmeyer
2014 “Formats
for Other-Initiation of Repair across Languages: An Exercise
in Pragmatic
Typology.” Studies in
Language 38: 5–43.
Drew, Paul, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
Drew, Paul, and Kobin H. Kendrick
2018 “Searching
for Trouble: Recruiting Assistance through Embodied
Action.” Social Interaction:
Video-Based Studies of Human
Sociality 1: 1–15. ISSN 2446-3620.
Evans, Nicholas, and Stephen C. Levinson
2009 “The
Myth of Language Universals: Language Diversity and Its
Importance for Cognitive
Science.” Behavioral and
Brain
Sciences 32: 429–448.
Floyd, Simeon, Giovanni Rossi, and Nick J. Enfield
(eds.) 2020 Getting
Others to Do Things: A Pragmatic Typology of
Recruitments. Berlin: Language Science Press.
Fox, Barbara A.
2007 “Principles
Shaping Grammatical Practices. An
Exploration.” Discourse
Studies 9: 299–318.
Fox, Barbara A., Fay Wouk, Makoto Hayashi, Steven Fincke, Liang Tao, Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Minna Laakso, and Wilfrido F. Hernandez
2009 “A
Cross-Linguistic Investigation of the Site of Initiation in
Same-Turn
Self-Repair.” In Conversation
Analysis: Comparative
Perspectives, ed.
by Jack Sidnell, 60–103. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fox, Barbara A., and Trine Heinemann
2016 “Rethinking
Format: An Examination of
Requests.” Language in
Society 45: 499–531.
2017 “Issues
in Action Formation: Requests and the Problem with
X.” Open
Linguistics 3: 31–64.
2021 “Are
They Requests? An Exploration of Declaratives of Trouble in
Service Encounters.” Research
on Language and Social
Interaction 54: 20–38.
Gubina, Alexandra
2021 “Availability,
Grammar, and Action Formation: On Simple and Modal
Interrogative Request Formats in Spoken
German.” Gesprächsforschung 22: 272–303.
2022 Grammatik des Handelns in der sozialen
Interaktion [Grammar of action in social
interaction]. Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
Gumperz, John J., and Steven C. Levinson
(eds.) 1996 Rethinking
linguistic
relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hayashi, Makoto
2003 “Language
and the Body as Resources for Collaborative Action: A Study
of Word Searches in Japanese
Conversation.” Research on
Language and Social
Interaction 36: 109–141.
Hoey, Elliott, and Chase W. Raymond
2022 “Managing
Conversation Analysis
Data.” In The
Open Handbook of Linguistic Data
Management, ed.
by Andrea Berez-Kroeker, Brad McDonnell, and Eve Koller, 257–266. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Jefferson, Gail
2004 “Glossary
of Transcript Symbols with an
Introduction.” In Conversation
Analysis: Studies from the First
Generation, ed.
by Gene H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kendrick, Kobin H., Penelope Brown, Mark Dingemanse, Simeon Floyd, Sonja Gipper, Kaoru Hayano, Elliott Hoey, Gertie Hoymann, Elizabeth Manrique, Giovanni Rossi, and Stephen C. Levinson
2020 “Sequence
Organization: A Universal Infrastructure for Social
Action.” Journal of
Pragmatics 168: 119–138.
Kendrick, Kobin H., and Paul Drew
2016 “Recruitment:
Offers, Requests, and the Organization of Assistance in
Interaction.” Research on
Language and Social
Interaction 49: 1–19.
Kiesling, Scott F.
2004 “Dude.” American
Speech 79: 281–305.
Lerner, Gene H.
1991 “On
the Syntax of Sentences in
Progress.” Language in
Society 20: 441–458.
Levinson, Stephen C.
2013 “Action-Formation
and
Ascription.” In The
Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed.
by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 103–130. Malden: Wiley Blackwell.
Nuyts, Jan
2006 “Modality:
Overview and Linguistic
Issues.” In The
Expression of Modality, ed.
by William Frawley, 1–26. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Pomerantz, Anita M.
1984 “Pursuing
a
Response.” In Structures
of Social Action, ed.
by Maxwell J. Atkinson, and John Heritage, 152–164. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Raymond, Chase W.
2017 “Indexing
a Contrast: The Do-Construction in English
Conversation.” Journal of
Pragmatics 118: 22–37.
Raymond, Chase W., Jeffrey D. Robinson, Barbara A. Fox, Sandra A. Thompson, and Kristella Montiegel
2021 “Modulating
Action through Minimization: Syntax in the Service of
Offering and
Requesting.” Language in
Society 50: 53–91.
Rossi, Giovanni
2012 “Bilateral
and Unilateral Requests. The Use of Imperatives and
Mi X? Interrogatives in
Italian.” Discourse
Processes 49: 426–458.
Rossi, Giovanni, and Jörg Zinken
2016 “Grammar
and Social Agency: The Pragmatics of Impersonal Deontic
Statements.” Language 92: e296–e325.
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
2007 Sequence
Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation
Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sidnell, Jack, and Nick J. Enfield
2012 “Language
Diversity and Social Action: A Third Locus of Linguistic
Relativity.” Current
Anthropology 53: 302–333.
Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers
(eds.) 2013 The
Handbook of Conversation
Analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Stevanovic, Melisa
2018 “Social
Deontics: A Nano-Level Approach to Human Power
Play.” Journal for the Theory
of Social
Behaviour 48: 369–389.
Stivers, Tanya
2011 “Morality
and Question Design: ‘Of course’ as Contesting a
Presupposition of
Askability.” In The
Morality of Knowledge in
Conversation, ed.
by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 82–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stivers, Tanya, and Federico Rossano
2010 “Mobilizing
Response.” Research on
Language and Social
Interaction 43: 3–31.
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2015 Grammar
in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive
Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Chase W. Raymond
Tuncer, Sylvaine, and Pentti Haddington
2020 “Object
Transfers: An Embodied Resource to Progress Joint Activities
and Build Relative
Agency.” Language in
Society 49: 61–87.
Wootton, Anthony J.
1997 Interaction
and the Development of
Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zinken, Jörg
2016 Requesting
Responsibility: The Morality of Grammar in Polish and
English Family
Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.