Article published In: Interactional Linguistics
Vol. 1:1 (2021) ► pp.123–151
The grammar of proposals for joint activities
This article is available free of charge.
Published online: 6 May 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.20011.tho
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.20011.tho
Abstract
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
- 3.1Let’s
- 3.2Why 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
References (48)
Alcázar, A. & Saltarelli, M. (2014). The
syntax of imperatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Asmuß, B. & Oshima, S. (2012). Negotiation
of entitlement in proposal sequences. Discourse
Studies 14(1):67–86.
Barnes, R. (2007). Formulations
and the facilitation of common agreement in meetings talk. Text &
Talk 27(3):273–296.
Bolden, G. B. & Robinson, J. D. (2011). Soliciting
accounts with why-interrogatives in conversation. Journal of
Communication 61(1):94–119.
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.
Clift, R. & Raymond, C. W. (2018). Actions
in practice: On details in collections. Discourse
Studies, 20(1):90–119.
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What
does grammar tell us about
action? Pragmatics 24(3),623–647.
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.
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.
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.
Floyd, S., Rossi, G., & Enfield, N. J. (Eds). (2020). Getting
others to do things, A pragmatic typology of
recruitments. Berlin: Language Sciences Press.
Fox, B. A. & Heinemann, T. (2016). Rethinking
format, an examination of requests. Language in
Society 45(4):499–531.
Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-said-she-said:
talk as social organization among black
children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Haiman, J. (1998). Talk
is cheap, sarcasm, alienation, and the evolution of
language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Heritage, J. & Raymond, C. W. (2021). Preference
and polarity: Epistemic stance in question design. Research on Language and Social
Interaction 54.1: 39–59.
Hoey, E. (2020). Self-authorizing
action: On let me X in English social interaction. Language in Society.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Robinson, J. D. (2016). Accountability
in social interaction. In J. D. Robinson (Ed.), Accountability
in social interaction (3–46). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence
organization in interaction: a primer in conversation analysis Volume
1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2013). Constructing
a proposal as a thought: a way to manage problems in the initiation of joint decision-making in Finnish workplace
interaction. Pragmatics 23(3):519–544.
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.
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.
Stivers, T. (2004). “No
no no” and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication
Research, 30(2):260–293.
Stivers, T. & Sidnell, J. (2016). Proposals
for activity collaboration. Research on Language and Social
Interaction 49(2):148–166.
Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar
in everyday talk: Building responsive
actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wootton, A. J. (1997). Interaction
and the development of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Cited by (20)
Cited by 20 other publications
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Sandra A. Thompson
2025. ‘Idea-Suggestions’ in an interactional grammar. In Grammar in Action [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 37], ► pp. 47 ff.
Ekşi, Kübra & Nilüfer Can Daşkın
Fox, Barbara A. & Chase Wesley Raymond
2025. On granularity in grammar and action. In Grammar in Action [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 37], ► pp. 26 ff.
Konzett‐Firth, Carmen & Ufuk Balaman
Tsuchiya, Keiko
Weatherall, Ann & Ann Doehring
2025. Accomplishing choral and collectively performed multi-modal self-defence actions. Interactional Linguistics 5:1-2 ► pp. 167 ff.
Çolak, Fulya & Ufuk Balaman
Gubina, Alexandra, Barbara A. Fox & Chase Wesley Raymond
2024. What to do next. In New Perspectives in Interactional Linguistic Research [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 36], ► pp. 20 ff.
Neyra, Rosario, Matthew Butler, Emilie Munch Nicolaisen, Paul Sbertoli-Nielsen, Catherine L. Tam, Barbara A. Fox & Chase Wesley Raymond
Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula & Angeliki Alvanoudi
2024. Polar answers. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 34:3 ► pp. 447 ff.
Virtanen, Mikko T & Riikka Nissi
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.
Rautiainen, Iira, Pentti Haddington & Antti Kamunen
Tuomenoksa, Asta, Suzanne Beeke & Anu Klippi
Bottema-Beutel, Kristen, Shannon Crowley & So Yoon Kim
Hao, Quanxi, Hui Guo, Chuntao Li & Shuai Yang
Heritage, John
Heritage, John
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.
Weigand, Edda
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 december 2025. 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.
