Cover not available
Part of
New Perspectives in Interactional Linguistic Research
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

| Leibniz-Institute for the German Language (IDS)Mannheim
| University of Colorado at BoulderBoulder
| University of Colorado at BoulderBoulder
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
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 26 August 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.36.01gub
References (50)
References
Antaki, Charles. 2012. “Affiliative and Disaffiliative Candidate Understandings.” Discourse Studies 14: 531–547. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolden, Galina B. 2013. “Unpacking ‘Self’: Repair and Epistemics in Conversation.” Social Psychology Quarterly 76: 314–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2014. “What Does Grammar Tell Us about Action?” Pragmatics 24: 623–647.Google Scholar
. 2021. “Language over Time: Some Old and New Uses of OKAY in American English.” Interactional Linguistics 1: 33–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting. 2018. Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Curl, Traci S. 2006. “Offers of Assistance: Constraints on Syntactic Design.” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1257–1280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021b. “When the Body Belies the Words: Embodied Agency with darf/kann ich? (“may/can I?”) in German.” Frontiers in Communication 6: 661800. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.). 2014. Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Floyd, Simeon, Giovanni Rossi, and Nick J. Enfield (eds.). 2020. Getting Others to Do Things: A Pragmatic Typology of Recruitments. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. 2007. “Principles Shaping Grammatical Practices. An Exploration.” Discourse Studies 9: 299–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., and Trine Heinemann. 2016. “Rethinking Format: An Examination of Requests.” Language in Society 45: 499–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Issues in Action Formation: Requests and the Problem with X.” Open Linguistics 3: 31–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. “Are They Requests? An Exploration of Declaratives of Trouble in Service Encounters.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 54: 20–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gubina, Alexandra. 2021. “Availability, Grammar, and Action Formation: On Simple and Modal Interrogative Request Formats in Spoken German.” Gesprächsforschung 22: 272–303.Google Scholar
. 2022. Grammatik des Handelns in der sozialen Interaktion [Grammar of action in social interaction]. Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J., and Steven C. Levinson (eds.). 1996. Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiesling, Scott F. 2004. “Dude.” American Speech 79: 281–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. 1991. “On the Syntax of Sentences in Progress.” Language in Society 20: 441–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2006. “Modality: Overview and Linguistic Issues.” In The Expression of Modality, ed. by William Frawley, 1–26. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Raymond, Chase W. 2017. “Indexing a Contrast: The Do-Construction in English Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 118: 22–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D., Rebecca Clift, Kobin H. Kendrick, and Chase W. Raymond (eds). 2024. The Cambridge Handbook of Methods in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni. 2012. “Bilateral and Unilateral Requests. The Use of Imperatives and Mi X? Interrogatives in Italian.” Discourse Processes 49: 426–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni, and Jörg Zinken. 2016. “Grammar and Social Agency: The Pragmatics of Impersonal Deontic Statements.” Language 92: e296–e325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack, and Nick J. Enfield. 2012. “Language Diversity and Social Action: A Third Locus of Linguistic Relativity.” Current Anthropology 53: 302–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers (eds.). 2013. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa. 2018. “Social Deontics: A Nano-Level Approach to Human Power Play.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 48: 369–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Federico Rossano. 2010. “Mobilizing Response.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 43: 3–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2015. Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Chase W. Raymond. 2021. “The Grammar of Proposals for Joint Activities.” Interactional Linguistics 1: 123–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wootton, Anthony J. 1997. Interaction and the Development of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zinken, Jörg. 2016. Requesting Responsibility: The Morality of Grammar in Polish and English Family Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar