Constructing a proposal as a thought: A way to manage problems in the initiation of joint decision-making in finnish workplace interaction

Melisa Stevanovic


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.

Quick links
A browser-friendly version of this article is not yet available. View PDF
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 9: 123-148. CrossrefGoogle 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 43: 1718-1740. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana
(1987) Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different. Journal of Pragmatics 11: 131-146. Crossref  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 2: 247-276.  BoP CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caffi, Claudia
(1999) On mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 881-909. Crossref  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 44: 681-692. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H
(1979) Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Psychology 11: 430-477. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert, and Richard Gerrig
(1990) Quotations as demonstrations. Language 66: 764-805. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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” Crossref
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. Crossref  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 10: 234-247. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Derek
(1997) Discourse and Cognition. London: Sage.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1999) Emotion discourse. Culture and Psychology 5: 271-291. CrossrefGoogle 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. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1990) Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 219-236. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy
(2005) Context as other minds: The pragmatics of sociality, cognition and communication. Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving
(1955) On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes 18: 213-231.  BoP CrossrefGoogle 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 31: 685-708. CrossrefGoogle 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. Crossref  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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond
(2005) The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68: 15-38. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1990) Accounting for proposals. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 111-124. Crossref  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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise
(2012) “I thought it was very interesting:” Conversational formats for taking a stance. Journal of Pragmatics 44: 2194-2210. CrossrefGoogle 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 49: 213-242. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mills, Sara
(2003) Gender and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Myers, Greg
(1998) Displaying opinions: Topic and disagreement in focus groups. Language in Society 27: 85-111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004) Matters of opinion: Talking about public ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Niemelä, Maarit
(2005) Voiced direct reported speech in conversational storytelling: Sequential patterns of stance taking. SKY Journal of Linguistics 18: 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 8: 131-140. Crossref  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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey
(2003) Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68: 939-967. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey, and John Heritage
(2006) The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society 35: 677-705. Crossref  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 66: 227-278. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
(1992) Lectures on conversation, Vol. 1 and 2. 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. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R
(1976) A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5: 1-23. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack
(2006) Coordinating gesture, gaze and talk in re-enactments. Research on Language and Social Interaction 39: 377-409. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael
(2010) “Direct” and “indirect” communicative acts in semiotic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 42: 337-353. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena
(2001) Responding in conversation: A study of response particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishing Company. Crossref  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 34: 529-545. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa
(2012a) Establishing joint decisions in a dyad. Discourse Studies 14: 779-803. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012b) Prosodic salience and the emergence of new decisions: On the prosody of approval in Finnish workplace interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 44: 843-862. Crossref  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 45: 297-321. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, and Makoto Hayashi
(2010) Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society 39: 1-25. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Strong, Michael, and Wendy Baron
(2004) An analysis of mentoring conversations with beginning teachers: Suggestions and responses. Teaching and Teacher Education 20: 47-57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tykkyläinen, Tuula, and Minna Laakso
(2009) Five-year-old girls negotiating pretend play: Proposals with the Finnish particle jooko . Journal of Pragmatics 42: 242-256. CrossrefGoogle 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 42: 1-19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watts, Richard
(2003) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref  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