Cover not available
Part of
Fixed Expressions: Building language structure and social action
Edited by Ritva Laury and Tsuyoshi Ono
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 315] 2020
► pp. 99–132

Chapter 5
English why don’t you X as a formulaic expression

| University of California, Santa Barbara
| University of Helsinki
In this chapter we examine a formulaic expression in English, why don’t you + action verb/predicate (= WDY). We show that WDY is used in everyday conversation to carry out the social work of giving advice, as in why don't you try taking it again? We argue that this construction is a formulaic expression because it is not understood compositionally: the WDY format does not ask a question, but proposes a future action that the speaker is recommending that the recipient undertake. Our chapter explores the implicativeness of WDY for subsequent talk, and reveals the intricate relationship between the grammar of WDY and the social work that it is used to do.
Keywords: formulaic expression, conversation, giving advice, grammar, reduction, prosody, dynamic, agentive, deontic, account
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The phenomenon
  • 3.Data and procedure
  • 4.Evidence for WDY as a formulaic expression
    • 4.1WDY is grammatically constrained
    • 4.2WDY as a FE giving advice
    • 4.3 Prosodic-phonetic design of WDY
      • a. WDY and pitch accents
      • b. WDY and phonetic reduction
  • 5.A variant of advice-giving WDY: why not X?
  • 6.The pay-off of using WDY to give advice
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 10 December 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.315.05tho
References (58)
References
Bolden, Galina B., and Jeffrey D. Robinson. 2011. “Soliciting Accounts with ‘Why’-Interrogatives in Conversation.” Journal of Communication 61 (1): 94–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1976. “Meaning and Memory.” Forum Linguisticum 1:1–14.Google Scholar
Butler, Carly W., Jonathan Potter, Susan Danby, Michael Emmison, and Alexa Hepburn. 2010. “Advice Implicative Interrogatives: Building ‘Client-centered Support’ in a Children’s Helpline.” Social Psychology Quarterly 73 (3): 265–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2000. “The Phonology of the Lexicon: Evidence from Lexical Diffusion.” In Usage-Based Models of Language, ed. by Michael Barlow, and Suzanne Kemmer, 65–85. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
. 2001. “Frequency Effects on French Liaison.” In Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, ed. by Joan L. Bybee, and Paul J. Hopper, 337–359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “Sequentiality as the Basis of Constituent Structure.” In The Evolution of Language from Pre-language, ed. by Talmy Givón, and Bertram Malle, 109–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “From Usage to Grammar: The Mind’s Response to Repetition.” Language 82 (4): 529–551. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Richard File-Muriel, and Ricardo Napoleao de Souza. 2016. “Special Reduction: A Usage-based Approach.” Language and Cognition 8: 421–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and William Pagliuca. 1987. “The Evolution of Future Meaning.” In Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, ed. by Anna Giacalone Ramat, Onofrio Carruba, and Giuliano Bernini, 109–122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Joanne Scheibman. 1999. “The Effect of Usage on Degrees of Constituency: The Reduction of don’t in English.” Linguistics 37 (4): 575–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Corrigan, Roberta, Edith Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali, and Kathleen Wheatley (eds). 2009. Formulaic Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2001. “Interactional Prosody: High onsets in Reason-for-the-call Turns.” Language in Society 30, 29–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004a. “Prosody and Sequence Organization in English Conversation: The Case of New Beginnings.” In Sound Patterns in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Cecilia E. Ford, 335–376. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004b. “Prosodische Stilisierungen im Gespräch (Prosodic stylizations in conversation).” In Zwischen Literatur und Anthropologie: Diskurse, Medien, Performanzen (Between Literature and Anthropology: Discourses, media, performances), ed. by Aleida Assmann, Ulrich Gaier, and Gisela Trommsdorff, 315–337. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
. 2014. “What does Grammar Tell us about Action?” Pragmatics 24 (3): 623–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting. 2018. Interactional Linguistics. Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Sandra A. Thompson. Forthcoming. “Action Ascription in Everyday Advice-giving Sequences.” In Action Ascription: Interaction in context, ed. by Arnulf Depperman, and Michael Haugh. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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): 129–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erman, Britt, and Beatrice Warren. 2000. “The Idiom Principle and the Open Choice Principle.” Text 20 (1): 29–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1989. “Grammatical Construction Theory and the Familiar Dichotomies.” In Language Processing in Social Context, ed. by Rainer Dietrich, and Carl F. Graumann, 17–38. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay, and Mary C. O’Connor. 1988. “Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of let alone .” Language 64, 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T.. 2001. Syntax: An Introduction, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne. 1996. “The Prosodic Contextualization of Moral Work: An Analysis of Reproaches in ‘why’-Formats.” In Prosody in Conversation, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Margret Selting, 271–302. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John. 1994. “Ritualization and the Development of Language.” In Perspectives on Grammaticalization, ed. by William Pagliuca, 3–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hepburn, Alexa, and Galina Bolden. 2013. “The Conversation Analytic Approach to Transcription.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 57–76. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Heritage, John, and Sue Sefi. 1992. “Dilemmas of Advice: Aspects of the Delivery and Reception of Advice in Interactions between Health Visitors and First-time Mothers.” In Talk at work. Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. by Paul Drew, and John Heritage, 359-417. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1987. “Emergent Grammar.” Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: 139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “The Openness of Grammatical Constructions.” Chicago Linguistic Society 40: 239–256.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 2004. “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Lerner, Gene, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul, and Charles J. Fillmore. 1999. “Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y? Construction.” Language 75: 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Action formation and ascription. In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 103–130. Malden MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mulder, Jean, and Sandra A. Thompson. 2008. “The Grammaticization of but as a Final Particle in English Conversation.” In Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, ed. by Ritva Laury, 179–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogden, Richard, Auli Hakulinen, and Liisa Tainio. 2004. “Indexing ‘no news’ with Stylization in Finnish.” In Sound Patterns in Interaction. Cross-Linguistic Studies from Conversation, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, and Cecilia E. Ford, 299–334. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pawley, Andrew. 2007. “Developments in the Study of Formulaic Language since 1970: A Personal View.” In Phraseology and Culture in English, ed. by Paul Skandera, 3–48. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pawley, Andrew, and Frances H. Syder. 1983. “Two Puzzles for Linguistic Theory: Nativelike Selection and Nativelike Fluency.” In Language and Communication, ed. by Jack C. Richards, and Richard W. Schmidt, 191–268. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1981. “Toward a Typology of Given-new Information.” In Radical Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 223–255. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pudlinski, Christopher. 2002. “Accepting and Rejecting Advice as Competent Peers.” Discourse Studies 4, 481–499. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Jeffrey. 2016. “Accountability in Social Interaction.” In Accountability in Social Interaction, ed. by Jeffrey Robinson, 1–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan, and Mark Liberman. 1975. “The intonational disambiguation of indirect speech acts.” Chicago Linguistic Society 11: 487–497.Google Scholar
Shaw, Chloe. 2012. Advice Giving in Telephone Interactions between Mothers and their Young Adult Daughters . PhD thesis, Loughborough University.
Shaw, Chloe, and Alexa Hepburn. 2013. “Managing the Moral Implications of Advice in Informal Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46 (4): 344–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shaw, Chloe, Jonathan Potter, and Alexa Hepburn. 2015. “Advice-implicative Actions: Using Interrogatives and Assessments to Deliver Advice in Mundane Conversation.” Discourse Studies 17 (3): 317–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2017. ”Imperative Turns at Talk: An Introduction.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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 (3): 297–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, John Heritage, Rebecca K. Barnes, Rose McCabe, Laura Thompson, and Merran Toerien. 2017. “Treatment Recommendations as Actions.” Health Communication 33 (11): 1335–1344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1987a. “Repetition in Conversation as Spontaneous Formulaicity.” Text 7 (3): 215–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1987b. “Repetition in Conversation: Toward a Poetics of Talk.” Language 63 (3): 574–605. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waring, Hansun Zhang. 2005. “Peer Tutoring in a Graduate Writing Center: Identity, Expertise and Advice Resisting.” Applied Linguistics 26: 141–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, Alison. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Formulaic Language: Pushing the Boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wray, Allison, and Michael R. Perkins. 1999. “The Function of Formulaic Language: An Integrated Model.” Language and Communication 20: 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie. 2008. Rethinking Idiomaticity: A Usage–based Approach. London/New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Converging Evidence from Corpus and Experimental Data to Capture Idiomaticity.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistics Theory 5 (1): 131–159.Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Ono, Tsuyoshi & Sandra A. Thompson
2024. Chapter 7. The indeterminacy and fluidity of reference in everyday conversation. In (Non)referentiality in Conversation [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 344], ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo
Kim, Mary Shin
2023. Korean imperatives at two different speech levels. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 33:4 ► pp. 559 ff. DOI logo
Steensig, Jakob, Maria Jørgensen, Nicholas Mikkelsen, Karita Suomalainen & 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 ► pp. 116 ff. DOI logo
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Sandra A. Thompson
2022. Action Ascription and Deonticity in Everyday Advice-Giving Sequences. In Action Ascription in Interaction, ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo
Raymond, Chase Wesley
2022. Suffixation and sequentiality. Interactional Linguistics 2:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, Anssi Peräkylä, Ritva Laury & Jan Lindström
2021. Intersubjectivity in action. In Intersubjectivity in Action [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 326], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 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.