Cover not available

Article published In: Interactional Linguistics
Vol. 6:1 (2026) ► pp.1–33

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

Accountability and type-fittedness as indicators of conditional relevance in interaction

Evidence from German proposals for joint action

 | University of Bayreuth | University of Freiburg
ORCiD logo with link | Freie Universität Berlin
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

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

Published online: 12 June 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.24016.gro
Abstract
In this paper, we analyze sequences of proposals for joint future action in German conversations, with the aim of capturing participants’ orientations towards conditional relevance (CR). We establish a data-driven operationalization of CR on the basis of different design-features of the proposals such as interrogativity, modal verbs (wollen, sollen, können), modal particles, and inbreath as well as by including contextual features, such as repetition of the proposal and gaze towards recipient(s). The responses to the proposals are categorized in terms of their type-fittedness related to approval/rejection. Our analysis confirms the view of CR as a scalar variable in proposal sequences. We show that the integration of accountability of proposal design and type-fittedness of responses is well suited to explaining variation in interlocutors’ orientations towards conditional relevance in addition to relating response mobilizing features to the presence or absence of a response.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Participants’ orientations towards conditional relevance in proposal sequences
  • 3.Data and methodological approach
  • 4.Operationalizing response mobilization (RM)
    • 4.1Parameters and hypotheses
    • 4.2Latent Class Analysis of response-mobilizing force
    • 4.3Interpretation of results from the LCA
  • 5.Measuring the correlation between response mobilization and response type
  • 6.Summary and discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (73)
References
Andersen, E. B. (1982). Latent Structure Analysis: A survey. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 9(1), 1–12. [URL]
Asmuß, B., & Oshima, S. (2012). Negotiation of entitlement in proposal sequences. Discourse Studies, 14(1), 67–86. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ayaß, R. (2021). Projektive Gattungen. Die kommunikative Verfertigung von Zukunft. In B. Weidner, K. König, W. Imo, & L. Wegner (Eds.), Verfestigungen in der Interaktion: Konstruktionen, sequenzielle Muster, kommunikative Gattungen (pp.57–82). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Birkner, K., Auer, P., Bauer, A., & Kotthoff, H. (Eds.). (2020). Einführung in die Konversationsanalyse. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolden, G. B., Mandelbaum, J., & Wilkinson, S. (2012). Pursuing a response by repairing an indexical reference. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(2), 137–155. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bottema-Beutel, K., Louick, R., & White, R. (2015). Repetition, response mobilization, and face: Analysis of group interactions with a 19-year-old with Asperger syndrome. Journal of Communication Disorders, 581, 179–193. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2006). From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733.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
Deppermann, A. (2021). Imperative im Deutschen: Konstruktionen, Praktiken oder social action formats? In W. Beate, K. Katharina, I. Wolfgang, & W. Lars (Eds.), Verfestigungen in der Interaktion (pp.195–230). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deppermann, A., & Gubina, A. (2021). Positionally-sensitive action-ascription. Interactional Linguistics, 1(2), 183–215. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dix, C. (2023). Transcribing facial gestures. Combining Jefferson with the International SignWriting Alphabet (ISWA). Facial Gestures in Interaction (Special Issue on Facial Gestures in Interaction, edited by Alexandra Groß & Carolin Dix), 6(3), [URL]
Drake, V. (2016). German questions and turn-final oder. Gesprächsforschung — Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 171, 168–195.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
El-Den, S., Schneider, C., Mirzaei, A., & Carter, S. (2020). How to measure a latent construct: Psychometric principles for the development and validation of measurement instruments. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 28(4), 326–336. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., & De Ruiter, J. P. (2012). Epistemic dimensions of polar questions: sentence-final particles in comparative perspective. In J. De Ruiter (Ed.), Questions (pp.193–221). West Nyack, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Golato, A., & Betz, E. (2008). German ach and achso in repair uptake: Resources to sustain or remove epistemic asymmetry. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 27(1), 7–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Groß, A. (2018). Arzt/Patient-Gespräche in der HIV-Ambulanz. Facetten einer chronischen Gesprächsbeziehung. Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gubina, A. (2022). Grammatik des Handelns in der sozialen Interaktion: Eine interaktionslinguistische, multimodale Untersuchung der Handlungskonstitution und -Zuschreibung mit Modalverbformaten im gesprochenen Deutsch. Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gubina, A., Deppermann, A., Fox, B. A., Raymond, C. W., & Thompson, S. A. (submitted). CA without the next-turn proof-procedure? Action categorization in trouble accounts. Research on Language and Social Interaction. (Special Issue “Action categorization in Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics: Challenges and perspectives.”)
Günthner, S., & Imo, W. (Eds.). (2006). Konstruktionen in der Interaktion. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hagenaars, J. A., & McCutcheon, A. L. (2002). Applied Latent Class Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2002). Grammatikalisierung: von der Performanz zur Kompetenz ohne angeborene Grammatik. In S. Krämer & E. König (Eds.), Gibt es eine Sprache hinter dem Sprechen? (pp.262–286). Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp.299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2024). Making arrangements: A sketch of a ‘big package’. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 57(3), 279–300. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoffmann, L. (2008). Über ja. Deutsche Sprache(3). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. (2015). Verb second. In T. Kiss & A. Alexiadou (Eds.), Syntax. Theory and Analysis. Volume 1 (pp.342–382). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (1990). Accounting for proposals. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(1), 111–124. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation Analysis. Principles, Practices and Applications. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
IDS. (2024). Datenbank für Gesprochenes Deutsch (DGD), FOLK. In. [[URL], last access: February 26, 2024].
Imo, W. (Ed.). (2013). Sprache in Interaktion. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. H., & Torreira, F. (2015). The timing and construction of preference: A quantitative study. Discourse Processes, 52(4), 255–289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koshik, I. (2002). Designedly incomplete utterances: A pedagogical practice for eliciting knowledge displays in error correction sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35(3), 277–309. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, P. (1950). The logical and mathematical foundation of Latent Structure Analysis. In S. A. Stouffer, L. Guttman, E. A. Suchmann, P. Lazarsfeld, S. A. Star, & J. A. Clausen (Eds.), Measurement and Prediction (pp.362–412). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, P., & Henry, N. (1969). Latent Structure Analysis. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lerner, G. H. (1991). On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society, 20(3), 441–458. [URL]
Lindström, A. (2017). Accepting remote proposals. In G. H. Lerner, G. Raymond, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Enabling Human Conduct. Studies of talk-in-interaction in honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff (pp.125–143). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Linzer, D. A., & Lewis, J. B. (2011). poLCA: An R package for polytomous variable Latent Class Analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 42(10), 1 — 29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Métrich, R., & Faucher, E. (2009). Wörterbuch deutscher Partikeln. Unter Berücksichtigung ihrer französischen Äquivalente. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.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
Mostovaia, I. (2019). Sollen wir uns mal treffen? — Nein… Wir müssen:D Deutsche Modalverben in Verabredungen per SMS und WhatsApp. In W. Imo & J. Wesche (Eds.), Brückenschläge (pp.163–184). Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nomikou, I., Rohlfing, K. J., & Szufnarowska, J. (2013). Educating attention: Recruiting, maintaining, and framing eye contact in early natural mother-infant interactions. Interaction Studies: Social Behaviour and Communication in Biological and Artificial Systems, 14(2), 240–267. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nylund-Gibson, K., & Choi, A. Y. (2018). Ten frequently asked questions about Latent Class Analysis. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 41, 440–461. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp.57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. In: Last accessed March 5, 2024. [URL]
Robinson, J. D. (2016). Accountability in Social Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 (pp.264–293). Oxford: Oxford Academic. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosemeyer, M. (2024). Data-driven identification of situated meanings in corpus data using Latent Class Analysis. Open Linguistics, 10(1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 701, 1075–1095.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996). Turn organization: one intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. 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. A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Vol I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up Closings. Semiotica, 81, 289–327. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selting, M. (1995). Prosodie im Gespräch. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Praktiken des Sprechens und Interagierens im Gespräch aus der Sicht von Konversationsanalyse und Interaktionaler Linguistik. In: Deppermann, A., Feilke, H., & Linke, A. (eds.): Sprachliche und kommunikative Praktiken. De Gruyter, (Jahrbuch des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache 2015), 27–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K., Couper-Kuhlen, E., Deppermann, A., Gilles, P., Günthner, S., Hartung, M., Kern, F., Mertzlufft, C., Meyer, C., Morek, M., Oberzaucher, F., Peters, J., Quasthoff, U., Schütte, W., … Uhmann, S. (2009). Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung — Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 101, 353–402.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. (2018). How we manage social relationships through answers to questions: The case of interjections. Discourse Processes, 56(3), 191–209. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(Ed.). (2022). The Book of Answers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. D. (2006). A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, 35(3), 367–392. 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
(2012). Mobilising response in interaction: a compositional view of questions. In J. De Ruiter (Ed.), Questions — Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives. (pp.58–80). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, T., & Sidnell, J. (2016). Proposals for activity collaboration. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(2), 148–166. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1987). Repetition in discourse: towards a poetics of talk. Language 631, 574–605.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Raymond, Ch. W. (2021). The grammar of proposals for joint activities. Interactional Linguistics 1:1 pp. 123–151.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thurmair, M. (1989). Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Turowetz, J. (2023). Conditional relevance. In A. Gubina, M. Hoey, & C. W. Raymond (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Venables, W., & Ripley, B. (2002). Modern Applied Statistics with S (4th ed.). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Winkworth, A. L., Davis, P. J., Adams, R. D., & Ellis, E. (1995). Breathing patterns during spontaneous speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 38(1), 124–144. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wlodarczak, M., & Heldner, M. (2020). Breathing in conversation [Original Research]. Frontiers in Psychology, 111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zifonun, G., Hoffmann, L., & Strecker, B. (1997). Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zinken, J., & Deppermann, A. (2017). A cline of visible commitment in the situated design of imperative turns. Evidence from German and Polish. In M.-L. Sorjonen, L. Raevaara, & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Imperative Turns at Talk. The design of directives in action (pp.27–63). Amsterdam, New York: John Benjamins.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, 461, 256–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue