Cover not available
Article published In:
Interactional Linguistics
Vol. 1:1 (2021) ► pp.123–151

The grammar of proposals for joint activities

ORCID logo | UC Santa Barbara
| University of Colorado, Boulder
| University of Colorado, Boulder

The action of proposing has been studied from various perspectives in research on talk-in-interaction, both in mundane as well as in institutional talk. Aiming to exemplify Interactional Linguistics as a drawing together of insights from Linguistics and Conversation Analysis, we explore the grammar of proposals and the stances displayed by participants in making proposals in the context of joint activities, where a future or hypothetical activity is being put forth as something the speaker and recipient(s) might do together. Close examination of interactions among American English-speaking adults reveals four recurrent grammatical formats for issuing proposals: Let’s, Why don’t we, Modal Declaratives, and Modal Interrogatives. We argue that these four formats for doing proposing within a joint activity are used in socially distinct environments, contributing to a growing understanding of the fit between entrenched linguistic patterns and the social work they have evolved to do.

Keywords: proposal, joint activities, (grammatical) format, let’s , grammar, deontic strength
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Establishing a collection of joint-activity proposals
  • 3.The grammar of proposals for joint activities
    • 3.1 Let’s
    • 3.2 Why don’t we (WDW)
    • 3.3Modal Declaratives
    • 3.4Modal Interrogatives
  • 4.Discussion
    • 4.1The action of proposing a joint activity
    • 4.2The grammar of proposing a joint activity
  • 5.Conclusion: Grammar in the service of deontic symmetry
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References


This article is available free of charge.

Published online: 6 May 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.20011.tho
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y.
(2010) Imperatives and commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alcázar, A. & Saltarelli, M.
(2014) The syntax of imperatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Asmuß, B. & Oshima, S.
(2012) Negotiation of entitlement in proposal sequences. Discourse Studies 14(1):67–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnes, R.
(2007) Formulations and the facilitation of common agreement in meetings talk. Text & Talk 27(3):273–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolden, G. B. & Robinson, J. D.
(2011) Soliciting accounts with why-interrogatives in conversation. Journal of Communication 61(1):94–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L.
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S. E. & Heritage, J.
(2014) Benefactors and beneficiaries: benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & P. Drew (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction, (55–86). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clift, R. & Raymond, C. W.
(2018) Actions in practice: On details in collections. Discourse Studies, 20(1):90–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E.
(2014) What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics 24(3),623–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Thompson, S. A.
Frthc.). Action ascription in everyday advice-giving sequences. In A. Depperman & M. Haugh Eds. Action ascription: interaction in context Cambridge Cambridge University Press
Curl, T. S.
(2006) Offers of assistance: constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics, 381:1257–1280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curl, T. S. & Drew, P.
(2008) Contingency and action: a comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(2):1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, E.
(1979) On the semantics of syntax: mood and condition in English. London: Croom-Helm.Google Scholar
Du Bois, I.
(2012) Grammatical, pragmatic and sociolinguistic aspects of the first person plural pronoun. In N. Baumgarten, I. Du Bois, & J. House (Eds.). Subjectivity in language and in discourse (319–338). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Floyd, S., Rossi, G., & Enfield, N. J.
(Eds) (2020) Getting others to do things, A pragmatic typology of recruitments. Berlin: Language Sciences Press.Google Scholar
Fox, B. A. & Heinemann, T.
(2016) Rethinking format, an examination of requests. Language in Society 45(4):499–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, M. H.
(1990) He-said-she-said: talk as social organization among black children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, J.
(1998) Talk is cheap, sarcasm, alienation, and the evolution of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J.
(1984a) A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1984b) Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Raymond, C. W.
(2021) Preference and polarity: Epistemic stance in question design. Research on Language and Social Interaction 54.1: 39–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoey, E.
(2020) Self-authorizing action: On let me X in English social interaction. Language in Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoey, E. & C. W. Raymond
Frthc.). Managing data in conversation analysis. In A. Berez-Kroeker, B. McDonnell, & E. Koller Eds. The open handbook of linguistic data management Cambridge MIT Press
Holt, E.
(1996) Reporting on talk: the use of direct reported speech in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 29(3):219–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Houtkoop, H.
(1987) Establishing agreement. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendrick, K. H. & Drew, P.
(2016) Recruitment, Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(1):1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koshik, Irene
2002 Designedly incomplete utterances: a pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction 5.3: 277–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Küttner, U-A. & C. W. Raymond
Frthc.). ‘I was gonna say…’: preliminary observations on the doubly reflexive character of a meta-communicative practice. LiLi, Studien zu Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik.
Lindström, A.
(2017) Accepting remote proposals. In G. Raymond, G. H. Lerner, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Enabling human conduct: studies of talk-in-interaction in honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff, (125–142). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, C. W., Robinson, J. D., Fox, B. A., Thompson, S. A., & Montiegel, K.
(2021) Modulating action through minimization: Syntax in the service of offering and requesting. Language in Society 50.1: 53–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. D.
(2016) Accountability in social interaction. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in social interaction (3–46). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020) One type of polar, information-seeking question and its stance of probability: Implications for the preference for agreement. Research on Language and Social Interaction 53(4), 425–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. D. & Bolden, G. B.
(2010) Preference organization of sequence-initiating actions: the case of explicit account solicitations. Discourse Studies 12(4):501–533. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. D. & Kevoe-Feldman, H.
(2016) The accountability of proposing (vs. soliciting proposals of) arrangements. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability in social interaction (264–293). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H.
(1987[1973]) On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (54–69). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. & E. A. Schegloff
(1979) Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language, studies in Ethnomethodology (15–21). New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.
(2007) Sequence organization in interaction: a primer in conversation analysis Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, M.
(2012) Establishing Joint Decisions in a Dyad. Discourse Studies 14(6):779–803. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, M. & Peräkylä, A.
(2012) Deontic authority in interaction: the right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3):297–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevanovic, M., Valkeäpää, T., Waiste, E., & Lindholm, C.
(2020) Joint decision making in a mental health rehabilitation community: the impact of support workers’ proposal design on client responsiveness. Counseling Psychology Quarterly. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T.
(2004) “No no no” and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research, 30(2):260–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. & Sidnell, J.
(2016) Proposals for activity collaboration. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(2):148–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E.
(2015) Grammar in everyday talk: Building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2014) The ultra-social animal. European Journal of Social Psychology 44(3):187–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wootton, A. J.
(1997) Interaction and the development of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zinken, J. & Deppermann, A.
(2017) A cline of visible commitment in the situated design of imperative turns. In M-L. Sorjonen, L. Raevaara & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Imperative turns at talk: the design of directives in action (27–64). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zinken, J. & Ogiermann, E.
(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
Cited by

Cited by 11 other publications

Bottema-Beutel, Kristen, Shannon Crowley & So Yoon Kim
2022. Sequence organization of autistic children’s play with caregivers: Rethinking follow-in directives. Autism 26:5 ► pp. 1267 ff. DOI logo
Hao, Quanxi, Hui Guo, Chuntao Li & Shuai Yang
2022. Subsequent Actions Engendered by the Absence of an Immediate Response to the Proposal in Mandarin Mundane Talk. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Heritage, John
2022. The Multiple Accountabilities of Action. In Action Ascription in Interaction, ► pp. 297 ff. DOI logo
Heritage, John
2023. Conversation Analysis. In The Cambridge Handbook of Language in Context, ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo
Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula & Angeliki Alvanoudi
2023. Polar answers. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) DOI logo
Rautiainen, Iira, Pentti Haddington & Antti Kamunen
2023. Nudging Questions as Devices for Prompting Courses of Action and Negotiating Deontic (A)symmetry in UN Military Observer Training. In Complexity of Interaction, ► pp. 217 ff. DOI logo
Thompson, Sandra A.
2021. Understanding ‘clause’ as an emergent ‘unit’ in everyday conversation. In Usage-based and Typological Approaches to Linguistic Units [Benjamins Current Topics, 114], ► pp. 11 ff. DOI logo
Tuomenoksa, Asta, Suzanne Beeke & Anu Klippi
2023. People with aphasia and their family members proposing joint future activities in everyday conversations: A conversation analytic study. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 58:2 ► pp. 310 ff. DOI logo
Virtanen, Mikko T & Riikka Nissi
2024. Negotiating joint commitment in collaborative work project: Focus on text-based requests and news deliveries in atypical work. Discourse Studies DOI logo
Weigand, Edda
2021. Dialogue. Language and Dialogue 11:3 ► pp. 457 ff. DOI logo
Yu, Guodong, Yaxin Wu, Paul Drew & Chase Wesley Raymond
2024. The DIG Mandarin Conversations (DMC) Corpus. Chinese Language and Discourse. An International and Interdisciplinary Journal 15:1 ► pp. 105 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.