Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T13:22:37.713Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modulating action through minimization: Syntax in the service of offering and requesting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2020

Chase Wesley Raymond Open the ORCID record for Chase Wesley Raymond [Opens in a new window] ,
Jeffrey D. Robinson ,
Barbara A. Fox ,
Sandra A. Thompson  and
Kristella Montiegel
Chase Wesley Raymond*
Affiliation:
University of Colorado, Boulder, USA
Jeffrey D. Robinson
Affiliation:
Portland State University, USA
Barbara A. Fox
Affiliation:
University of Colorado, Boulder, USA
Sandra A. Thompson
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara, USA
Kristella Montiegel
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles, USA
*
Address for correspondence: Chase Wesley Raymond, Department of Linguistics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Hellems 290, 295 UCB, Boulder, Colorado80309, USAChase.Raymond@colorado.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study uses data from a shoe-repair shop, supplemented by data from medical and mundane contexts, to analyze three progressively minimal grammatical formats used to implement offers and requests in interaction (i.e. do you want…?, you want…?, and want…?). We argue that this cline of minimality reflects a cline of the action-initiator's stance, from relatively weak to strong (respectively), regarding their expectation that the action will be accepted or complied with. In doing so, we illustrate that, as part of the design of requests and offers, participants rely on more granular distinctions than a simple binary between interrogative and declarative morphosyntax. We conclude with a discussion of the interactional logic that undergirds the normative use of these grammatical formats, and of our findings’ implications for action formation and preference organization. (Conversation analysis, interactional linguistics, offer, request, stance, grammar, morphosyntax)*

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , February 2021 , pp. 53 - 91
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The authors would like to thank the Department of Linguistics at the University of Colorado, Boulder for a small grant to collect and transcribe the shoe-shop data. Thanks especially to Patricia Davidson for her work on that endeavor. And many thanks to the owners of the shoe shop for allowing us to record their work. We are also indebted to an early term paper on this general topic by Lenae Everette.

References

Beach, Wayne A. (1993). Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “Okay” usages. Journal of Pragmatics 19(4):325–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolden, Galina B. (2009). Implementing delayed actions. In Sidnell, Jack (ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives, 326–435. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolden, Galina B., & Mandelbaum, Jenny (2017). The use of conversational co-remembering to corroborate contentious claims. Discourse Studies 19(1):3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language 82(4):529–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven E., & Heritage, John (2014). Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Drew, Paul (eds.), Requesting in social interaction, 55–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Clift, Rebecca (2001). Meaning in interaction: The case of actually. Language 77(2):245–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clift, Rebecca, & Raymond, Chase Wesley (2018). Actions in practice: On details in collections. Discourse Studies 20(1):90–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (2012). Some truths and untruths about final intonation in conversational questions. In de Ruiter, Jan P. (ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives, 123–45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (2014). What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics 24(3):623–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, & Ford, Cecilia A. (eds.) (2004). Sound patterns in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, & Selting, Margret (eds.) (1996). Prosody in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curl, Traci S. (2006). Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics 38(8):1257–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curl, Traci S., & Drew, Paul (2008). Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(2):129–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curl, Traci S.; Local;, John & Walker, Gareth (2006). Repetition and the prosody-pragmatics interface. Journal of Pragmatics 38(10):1721–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drake, Veronika (2015). Indexing uncertainty: The case of turn-final or. Research on Language and Social Interaction 48(3):301–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul (2013). Turn design. In Sidnell & Stivers, 131–49.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul (2018). Epistemics in social interaction. Discourse Studies 20(1):163–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul, & Heritage, John (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In Drew, Paul & Heritage, John (eds.), Talk at work, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. (2008). Polar questions. In Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David, & Comrie, Bernard (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Online: http://wals.info/feature/116.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. (2007). The stance triangle. In Englebretson, 139–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durkheim, Emile (1982). The rules of sociological method. Ed. by Lukes, Steven, trans. by Walls, W. D.. New York: Free Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, N. J.; Stivers, Tanya; Brown, Penelope; Englert, Christina; Harjunpää, Katariina; Hayashi, Makota; Heinemann, Trine; Hoymann, Gertie; Keisanen, Tiina; Rauniomaa, Mirka; Raymond, Chase Wesley; Rossano, Federico; Yoon, Kyung-eun; Zwitserlood, Inge; & Levinson, Stephen C. (2019). Polar answers. Journal of Linguistics 55(2):277–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Englebretson, Robert (ed.) (2007). Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. (2001). Denial and the construction of conversational turns. In Bybee, Joan & Noonan, Michael (eds.), Complex sentences in grammar and discourse, 61–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E.; Fox;, Barbara A. & Thompson, Sandra A. (2002). Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara A., & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), The language of turn and sequence, 14–38. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. (1987). Discourse structure and anaphora: Written and conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. (2007). Principles shaping grammatical practices: An exploration. Discourse Studies 9(3):299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., & Heinemann, Trine (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., & Heinemann, Trine (2016). Rethinking format: An examination of requests. Language in Society 45(4):499–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., & Heinemann, Trine (2017). Issues in action formation: Requests and the problem with x. Open Linguistics 3(1):31–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., & Heinemann, Trine (2019). Telescoping responses to requests: Unpacking progressivity. Discourse Studies 21(1):38–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John (1984a). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, John (eds.), Structures of social action, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (1984b). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (2012a). Beyond and behind the words: Some reactions to my commentators. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1):76–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John (2012b). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1):30–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John (2012c). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1):1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John (2015). Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: A conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 88:88–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, & Raymond, Chase Wesley (2020). Preference and polarity: Epistemic stance in question design. Research on Language and Social Interaction, to appear.Google Scholar
Heritage, John; Raymond;, Chase Wesley & Drew, Paul (2019). Constructing apologies: Reflexive relationships between apologies and offenses. Journal of Pragmatics 142:185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, & Raymond, Geoffrey (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly 68(1):15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, & Raymond, Geoffrey (2012). Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In de Ruiter, J. P. (ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives, 179–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul, & Thompson, Sandra A. (1984). The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language 60(4):703–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaffe, Alexandra (ed.) (2009). Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (1978). Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In Schenkein, Jim (ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction, 219–48. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 13–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise (2003). Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on ‘I think’. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo (2018). What does embodied interaction tell us about grammar? Research on Language and Social Interaction 51(1):1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin H., & Drew, Paul (2016). Recruitment: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(1):1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin H., & Holler, Judith (2017). Gaze direction signals response preference in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 50(1):12–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H., & Kitzinger, Celia (2015). Or-prefacing in the organization of self-initiated repair. Research on Language and Social Interaction 48(1):58–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. (1987). Minimization and conversational inference. In Verschueren, Jef & Papi, Marcella Bertuccelli (eds.), The pragmatic perspective: Selected papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference, 61–129. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. (2007). Optimizing person reference: Evidence from repair on Rossel Island. In Enfield, N. J. & Stivers, Tanya (eds.), Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives, 29–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell & Stivers, 103–30.Google Scholar
Local, John, & Walker, Gareth (2008). Stance and affect in conversation: On the interplay of sequential and phonetic resources. Text & Talk 28(6):723–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza (2017). Precision timing and timed embeddedness of imperatives in embodied courses of action: Examples from French. In Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, Raevaara, Liisa, & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (eds.), Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action, 65–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicita, Linda M. (2002). Cognitive verbs in Spanish: A discourse profile of acordarse, creer, saber, and related verbs. Boulder: University of Colorado, Boulder dissertation.Google Scholar
Ogden, Richard, & Walker, Traci (2013). Phonetic resources in the construction of social actions. In Szczepek-Reed, Beatrice & Raymond, Geoffrey (eds.), Units of talk – Units of action, 277–312. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peräkylä, Anssi, & Ruusuvuori, Johanna (2012). Facial expression and interactional regulation of emotion. In Peräkylä, Anssi & Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (eds.), Emotion in interaction, 64–91. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita, & Heritage, John (2013). Preference. In Sidnell & Stivers, 210–28.Google Scholar
Raymond, Chase Wesley (2016). Linguistic reference in the negotiation of identity and action: Revisiting the T/V distinction. Language 92(3):636–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Chase Wesley (2017). Indexing a contrast: The ‘do’-construction in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 118:22–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Chase Wesley; Clift, Rebecca; & Heritage, John (2020). Reference without anaphora: On agency through grammar. Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences, to appear.Google Scholar
Raymond, Chase Wesley, & Fox, Barbara A. (2020). Asserting no-problemness in Spanish: ‘No hay (ningún) problema’ and the study of noun phrases in interaction. In Oni, Tsuyoshi & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), The Pragmatics of the ‘noun phrase’ across languages: An emergent unit in interaction, 119–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey (2000). The structure of responding: Type-conforming and nonconforming responses to yes/no type interrogatives. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68(6):939–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey (2010). Grammar and social relations: Alternative forms of yes/no-type initiating actions in health visitor interactions. In Freed, Alice F. & Ehrlich, Susan (eds.), ‘Why do you ask?’: The function of questions in institutional discourse, 87–107. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey, & Heritage, John (2006). The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society 35:677–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D. (2007). The role of numbers and statistics within conversation analysis. Communication Methods and Measures 1(1):65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D. (2014). What ‘what?’ tells us about how conversationalists manage intersubjectivity. Research on Language and Social Interaction 47(2):109–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey D. (2020). Revisiting preference organization in context: A qualitative and quantitative examination of responses to information seeking. Research on Language and Social Interaction 53(2):197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni (2012). Bilateral and unilateral requests: The use of imperatives and mi X? interrogatives in Italian. Discourse Processes 49(5):426–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey (1984). Notes on methodology. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, John (eds.), Structures of social action, 21–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold, & Zwicky, Arnold M. (1985). Speech acts in syntax. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and linguistic description, 155–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A., & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2016). Increments. In Jeffrey D. Robinson (ed.), Accountability in social interaction, 239–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., & Sacks, Harvey (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica 8(4):289–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheibmann, Joanne (2002). Point of view and grammar: Structural patterns of subjectivity in American English conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Cole, Peter & Morgan, Jerry L. (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts, 261–86. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack, & Stivers, Tanya (eds.) (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, & Raevaara, Liisa (2014). On the grammatical form of requests at the convenience store: Requesting as embodied action. In Drew, Paul & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (eds.), Requesting in social interaction, 243–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa (2013). Deontic rights in interaction: A conversation analytic study on authority and cooperation. Helsinki: University of Helsinki dissertation.Google Scholar
Stevanovic, Melisa, & Peräkylä, Anssi (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(3):297–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, & Rossano, Federico (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(1):3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tao, Hongyin (1996). Units in Mandarin conversation: Prosody, discourse, and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tao, Hongyin (2003). A usage-based approach to argument structure: ‘Remember’ and ‘forget’ in spoken English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(1):75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tersaki, Alene Kiku (2004). Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. In Lerner, Gene H. (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 171–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. (2002). ‘Object complements’ and conversation: Towards a realist account. Studies in Language 26(1):125–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (2005). The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies 7(4–5):481–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A.; Fox;, Barbara A. & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (2015). Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., & Mulac, Anthony (1991). The discourse conditions for the use of complementizer ‘that’ in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15(3):237–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena, & Travis, Catherine E. (2014). Prosody, priming and particular constructions: The patterning of English first-person singular subject expression in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 63:19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Travis, Catherine E., & Cacoullos, Rena Torres (2012). What do subject pronouns do in discourse? Cognitive, mechanical and constructional factors in variation. Cognitive Linguistics 23(4):711–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voutilainen, Liisa; Henttonen, Pentti; Kahri, Mikko; Kivioja, Maari; Ravaja, Niklas; Sams, Mikko; & Peräkylä, Anssi (2014). Affective stance, ambivalence, and psychophysiological responses during conversational storytelling. Journal of Pragmatics 68:1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wootton, Anthony J. (1997). Interaction and the development of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Ruey-Jiuan Regina (2003). Stance in talk: A conversation analysis of Mandarin final particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar