Cover not available

Article published In: Interactional Linguistics
Vol. 1:2 (2021) ► pp.183–215

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF

Positionally-sensitive action-ascription

Uses of Kannst du X? ‘Can you X?’ in their sequential and multimodal context

ORCiD logo with link | Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche SpracheMannheim, Germany
ORCiD logo with link | Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche SpracheMannheim, Germany
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 15 November 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.21005.dep
Abstract
(1996). Turn organization: one intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar has argued that grammars are “positionally-sensitive”, implying that the situated use and understanding of linguistic formats depends on their sequential position. Analyzing the German format Kannst du X? (corresponding to English Can you X?) based on 82 instances from a large corpus of talk-in-interaction (FOLK), this paper shows how different action-ascriptions to turns using the same format depend on various orders of context. We show that not only sequential position, but also epistemic status, interactional histories, multimodal conduct, and linguistic devices co-occurring in the same turn are decisive for the action implemented by the format. The range of actions performed with Kannst du X? and their close interpretive interrelationship suggest that they should not be viewed as a fixed inventory of context-dependent interpretations of the format. Rather, the format provides for a root-interpretation that can be adapted to local contextual contingencies, yielding situated action-ascriptions that depend on constraints created by contexts of use.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous research on can you X?
  • 3.Data and methods
  • 4.Grammar and semantics of Kannst du X?
  • 5.Uses of Kannst du X?
    • 5.1Kannst du X? used as question concerning the recipient’s ability, the permissibility, or the possibility of action
    • 5.2Kannst du X? used as request for action
  • 6.Summary
  • 7.Discussion
  • 8.Symbols used in transcripts
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Glosses
  • References
References (68)
References
Antaki, C., & Kent, A. (2012). Telling people what to do (and, sometimes, why): contingency, entitlement and explanation in staff requests to adults with intellectual impairments. Journal of Pragmatics, 441, 876–889. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Auer, P. (1996). On the prosody and syntax of turn-continuations. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in conversation (pp. 57–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baldauf-Quilliatre, H., & Imo, W. (2020). pfff. In W. Imo & J. P. Lanwer (Eds.), Prosodie und Konstruktionsgrammatik (pp. 201–232). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Betz, E. (2015). Indexing epistemic access through different confirmation formats: uses of responsive (das) stimmt in German interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 871, 251–266. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. (1957). Interrogative structures of American English: the direct question. Publication of the American Dialect Society, No. 28. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1979). Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Psychology, 11(4), 430–477. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clayman, S. E., & Heritage, J. (2014). Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In P. Drew & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction (pp. 55–86). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tell us about action?. Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–647. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional linguistics: studying language in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Craven, A., & Potter, J. (2010). Directives: entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, 12(4), 419–442. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Curl, T., & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: a comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 411, 129–153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deppermann, A., & Haugh, M. (2021). Action ascription in social interaction. In A. Deppermann & M. Haugh (Eds.), Action ascription in interaction (pp. 3–27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deppermann, A., & Schmidt, A. (2021). Micro-sequential coordination in early responses. In: Discourse Processes, 58(4), 372–396. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, P., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.) (2014). Requesting in social interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ekman, P. (1979). About brows: emotional and conversational signals. In M. von Cranach, K. Foppa, W. Lepenies & D. Ploog (Eds.), Human ethology (169–249). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976). Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society, 5(1), 25–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S., Strage, A., Lampert, M., & Bell, N. (1987). Understanding requests. Linguistics, 25(1), 107–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Floyd, S., Rossi, G., & Enfield, N. J. (Eds.) (2020). Getting others to do things: a pragmatic typology of recruitments. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fox, B. A. (2007). Principles shaping grammatical practices: an exploration. Discourse Studies, 9(3), 299–318. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). On the notion of pre-request. Discourse Studies, 17(1), 41–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fox, B. A., & Heinemann, T. (2016). Rethinking format: an examination of requests. Language in Society, 45(4), 499–531. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Issues in action formation: Requests and the problem with x. Open Linguistics, 3(1), 31–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (1983). Do people always process the literal meanings of indirect requests?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9(3), 524–533.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1994). The poetics of mind: figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gordon, D., & Lakoff, G. (1971). Conversational postulates. In Proceedings of the 7th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 63–84).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gubina, A. (2021a). Availability, grammar, and action formation: On simple and modal interrogative request formats in spoken German. In: Gesprächsforschung / Discourse and Conversation Analysis 221, 272–303.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021b). Intersubjektivitatssicherung und Inferenzzuruckweisung: Funktionen der Responsivpartikel doch im gesprochenen Deutsch. Paper given at Arbeitstagung zur Gesprächsforschung, Mannheim, [URL]
Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). The multiple accountabilities of action. In A. Deppermann & M. Haugh (Eds.), Action ascription in interaction (pp. 297–328). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, J., & M.-L. Sorjonen. (1994). Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: and-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society, 23(1), 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koshik, I. (2003). Wh-questions used as challenges. Discourse Studies, 5(1), 51–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (2012). Modals and conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Action-formation and ascription. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp. 103–130). Malden: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85–106. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Parry, R. (2013). Giving reasons for doing something now or at some other time. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(2), 105–124, Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rauniomaa, M., & Keisanen, T. (2012). Two multimodal formats for responding to requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(6–7), 829–842. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raymond, G. (2013). At the intersection of turn and sequence organization: on the relevance of “slots” in type-conforming responses to polar interrogatives. In B. Szczepek Reed & G. Raymond (Eds.), Units of talk – units of action (pp. 169–206). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robinson, J. (2013). Epistemics, action formation, and other-initiation of repair: the case of partial questioning repeats. In M. Hayashi, G. Raymond & J. Sidnell (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 261–292). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rossi, G. (2015). The request system in Italian interaction (Ph.D. dissertation). Nijmegen: Radboud University.
(2018). Composite social actions: the case of factual declaratives in everyday interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(4), 379–397. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rossi, G., & Zinken, J. (2016). Grammar and social agency: the pragmatics of impersonal deontic statements. Language, 92(4), e296–e325. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1984). On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 266–298). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1988). Presequences and indirection: applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(1), 55–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(1), 99–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996). Turn organization: one intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, J. R., & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Speech acts and illocutionary logic. In D. Vanderveken (Ed.), Logic, thought and action (pp. 109–132). Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: an essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 261–286). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K. et al. (2011). A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. Translated and adapted for English by E. Couper-Kuhlen and D. Barth-Weingarten. Gesprächsforschung / Discourse and Conversation Analysis 121, 1–51.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (Eds.) (2013). The handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: the English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sorjonen, M. L., Raevaara, L., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.) (2017). Imperative turns at talk: the design of directives in action. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steensig, J., & Heinemann, T. (2013). When “yes” is not enough – as an answer to a yes/no question. In B. Szczepek Reed & G. Raymond (Eds.), Units of talk – units of action (pp. 207–242). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, T. (2004). “No no no” and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research, 30(2), 260–293. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, T., & Hayashi, M. (2010). Transformative answers: one way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society, 39(1), 1–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, T., Rossi, G., & Chalfoun, A. (submitted). Ambiguities in action ascription. Social Forces.
Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). Grammar in everyday talk: building responsive actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thornburg, L., & Panther, K. (1997). Speech act metonymies. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, 41, 205–222. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wootton, A. J. (2005). Interactional and sequential configurations informing request format selection in children’s speech. In A. Hakulinen & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation: studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction (pp. 185–207). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zinken, J. (2015). Contingent control over shared goods. ‘Can I have x’ requests in British English informal interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 821, 23–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Requesting responsibility. The morality of grammar in Polish and English family interaction. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zinken, J., & Ogiermann, E. (2013). Responsibility and action: invariants and diversity in requests for objects in British English and Polish interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(3), 256–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Atkins, Sarah, Emma Richardson, Joanne Traynor & Felicity Deamer
2025. Communicating and categorising ‘kidnap’ incidents in UK police emergency calls: a conversation analytic study. Policing and Society 35:2 ► pp. 149 ff. DOI logo
Deppermann, Arnulf & Alexandra Gubina
2025. Coding actions in social interaction: Potentials and problems. Research on Language and Social Interaction 58:3 ► pp. 258 ff. DOI logo
Dix, Carolin
2025. ‘Now it tells you to press continue’: multimodal strategies for navigating between machine-human and human-human instructions in Thermomix® experience meetings. Frontiers in Communication 10 DOI logo
Groß, Alexandra & Malte Rosemeyer
2025. Accountability and type-fittedness as indicators of conditional relevance in interaction. Interactional Linguistics DOI logo
Hänggi, Philipp & Lorenza Mondada
2025. “What is this?”: Multisensorial explorations of food with and without sight. Appetite 205 ► pp. 107530 ff. DOI logo
Zinken, Jörg & Christina Mack
2025. Sequence, gaze, and modal semantics: modal verb selection in German permission inquiries. Linguistics 63:1 ► pp. 159 ff. DOI logo
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. DOI logo
Fele, Giolo
2023. The Organization of Emergency Calls. In Emergency Communication, ► pp. 11 ff. DOI logo

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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue