Cover not available
Part of
Grammar in Action: Building comprehensive grammars of talk-in-interaction
Edited by Jakob Steensig, Maria Jørgensen, Jan K. Lindström, Nicholas Mikkelsen, Karita Suomalainen and Søren Sandager Sørensen
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 37] 2025
► pp. 26–46

Chapter 2
On granularity in grammar and action

 | University of Colorado, Boulder
 | University of Colorado, Boulder
In this study, we explore the relevance of granularity to the study of grammar-in-interaction, with special reference to the writing of an online grammar (cf. Steensig, et al. 2023). In CA/IL research, it routinely occurs that a form or action is described and analyzed at one level of detail, and then subsequent research reveals that that form/action actually displays meaningful and ordered variation that deserves more focused examination. Here we summarize previous studies which reveal the significance of more granular descriptions, and we discuss our maxim — arising from Sacks’ claim that there is ‘order at all points’ — that the more granular our analytic approaches are, the more granular our understandings of forms and actions will become.
Keywords: grammar, interaction, granularity, morphosyntax, prosody, particles, interactional linguistics, conversation analysis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Granularity in the study of a particle: The case of oh
  • 3.Granularity in the study of clause beginnings: The case of ((do) you) want…
  • 4.Granularity in the study of clause endings: The case of The Problem with ‘X’
  • 5.Discussion: What is ‘grammar’, and what is ‘action’?
    • 5.1What is ‘grammar’?
    • 5.2What is ‘action’?
    • 5.3How to incorporate granularity into written grammars
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (59)
References
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar, Uwe-A. Küttner, and Chase Wesley Raymond. 2021. “Pivots revisited: Cesuring in Action.” Open Linguistics 7 (1): 61–637. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Paul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 55–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clift, Rebecca. 2016. Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clift, Rebecca, and Chase Wesley Raymond. 2018. “Actions in practice: On details in collections.” Discourse Studies 20 (1): 90–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2009. “A sequential approach to affect: The case of ‘disappointment’.” In Talk in Interaction: Comparative Perspectives, edited by Markku Haakana, Minna Laakso, and Jan Lindström, 94–123. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura (Finnish Literature Society).Google Scholar
. 2014. “What does grammar tell us about action?” Pragmatics 24 (3): 623–647.Google Scholar
. 2018. “Finding a place for body movement in grammar.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 51: 22–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. “OH+OKAY in informing sequences: On fuzzy boundaries in a particle combination.”  Open Linguistics 7 (1): 816–836. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting. 2018. Interactional Linguistics. 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 (2): 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., and Barbara A. Fox. 2010. Multiple practices for constructing laughables. In Prosody in Interaction, edited by Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Elisabeth Reber, and Margret Selting, 339–368. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., and Trine Heinemann. 2015. “The alignment of manual and verbal displays in requests for the repair of an object.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 48 (3): 342–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Rethinking format: An examination of requests.” Language in Society 45 (4): 499–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “Issues in action formation: Requests and the problem with x.” Open Linguistics 3: 31–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., Lorenza Mondada, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen (eds.). 2023. Encounters at the Counter: The Organization of Shop Interactions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freese, Jeremy, and Douglas W. Maynard. 1998. “Prosodic features of bad news and good news in conversation.” Language in Society 27: 195–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Glenn, Phillip. 2003. Laughter in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
González Temer, Verónica, and Richard Ogden. 2021. “Non-convergent boundaries and action ascription in multimodal interaction.”  Open Linguistics 7(1): 685–706. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hepburn, Alexa, and Scott Varney. (2013). “Beyond ((laughter)): Some notes on transcription.” In Studies in Laughter in Interaction, ed. by Phillip Glenn and Elizabeth Holt, 25–38. London: Bloomsbury. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. “A change-of-state token and aspects of Its sequential placement.” In Structures of Social Action, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1998. “Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry.” Language in Society 27 (3): 291–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2002). “Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: A method of modifying agreement/disagreement.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 196–224. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2018). “The ubiquity of epistemics: A rebuttal to the ‘epistemics of epistemics’ group.” Discourse Studies 20 (1): 14–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John., Chase Wesley Raymond, and Paul Drew. 2019. “Constructing apologies: Reflexive relationships between apologies and offenses.” Journal of Pragmatics 142: 185–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoey, Elliott. 2014. “Sighing in interaction: Somatic, semiotic, and social.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 47 (2): 175–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1978. “What’s In a ‘Nyem’?” Sociology 12 (1): 135–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1979. “A Technique for Inviting Laughter and its Subsequent Acceptance/Declination.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 79–96. New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
. 1985. “An Exercise in the Transcription and Analysis of Laughter.” In Handbook of Discourse Analysis Volume 3, ed. by Teun A. van Dijk, 25–34. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail, Harvey Sacks, and Emanuel A. Schegloff. 1987. “Notes on Laughter in the Pursuit of Intimacy.” In Talk and Social Organisation, edited by Graham Button, and John R. E. Lee, 152–205. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo. 2018. “What does embodied interaction tell us about grammar?” Research on Language and Social Interaction 51: 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo, and Richard Ogden. 2020. “Sounds on the Margins of Language at the Heart of Interaction.”  Research on Language and Social Interaction 53 (1): 1–18. 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): 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Küttner, Uwe-A. 2018. “Investigating inferences in sequences of action: The case of claiming ‘just-now’ recollection with oh that’s right.”  Open Linguistics 4 (1): 101–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Local, John. 1992. “Conversational phonetics: Some aspects of news receipts in everyday talk.” York Papers in Linguistics 16: 37–79.Google Scholar
. 1996. “Conversational phonetics: Some aspects of news receipts in everyday talk.” In Prosody in Conversation, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Margret Selting, 177–230. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Local, John, and Gareth Walker. 2012. “How phonetic features project more talk.” Journal of the International Phonetic Association 42 (3): 255–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W., and Jeremy Freese. 2012. “Good News, Bad News, and Affect: Practical and Temporal ‘Emotion’ Work in Everyday Life.” In Emotion in Interaction, ed. by Anssi Peräkylä, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 92–112. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2024. “Multimodal Transcription Conventions.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods in Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jeffrey D. Robinson, Rebecca Clift, Kobin H. Kendrick, and Chase Wesley Raymond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ogden, Richard. 2013. “Clicks and percussives in English conversation.” Journal of the International Phonetic Association 43 (3): 299–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Chase Wesley, Rebecca Clift, and John Heritage. 2021. “Reference without anaphora: On agency through grammar.” Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences 59 (3): 715–755. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Chase Wesley, Jeffrey D. Robinson, Barbara A. Fox, Sandra A. Thompson, and Kristella Montiegl. 2021. “Modulating action through minimization: Syntax in the service of offering and requesting.” Language in Society 50: 53–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey, and John Heritage. 2006. “The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren.” Language in Society 35: 677–705. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D., Rebecca Clift, Kobin H. Kendrick, and Chase Wesley Raymond. 2024. The Cambridge Handbook of Methods in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1984. “Notes on Methodology.” In Structures of Social Action, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 21–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1992. Lectures on Conversation (2 vols.). New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold, and Arnold M. Zwicky. 1985. “Speech acts in syntax.” In Language Typology and Linguistic Description, ed. by Timothy Shopen, 155–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. “Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action.” American Journal of Sociology 102 (1): 161–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. “On granularity.” Annual Review of Sociology 26: 715–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis (Volume 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steensig, Jakob, Maria Jørgensen, Nicholas Mikkelsen, Karita Suomalainen, and Søren Sandager Sørensen. 2023. “Toward a grammar of Danish talk-in-interaction: From action formation to grammatical description.”  Research on Language and Social Interaction 56 (2): 116–140. 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 Wesley Raymond. 2021. “The Grammar of Proposals for Joint Activities.” Interactional Linguistics 1 (1): 123–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, Sue, and Celia Kitzinger. (2006). “Surprise as an interactional achievement: Reaction tokens in conversation.” Social Psychology Quarterly 69: 150–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wright, Melissa. 2011. “On clicks in English talk-in-interaction.”  Journal of the International Phonetic Association 41 (2): 207–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zinken, Jörg, and Arnulf Deppermann. 2017. “A cline of visible commitment in the situated design of imperative turns.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 27–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zinken, Jörg, and Eva Ogiermann. 2011. “How to Propose an Action as Objectively Necessary: The Case of Polish Trzeba x (‘One Needs to x’).” Research on Language and Social Interaction 44 (3): 263–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar