In:Enabling Human Conduct: Studies of talk-in-interaction in honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff
Edited by Geoffrey Raymond, Gene H. Lerner and John Heritage
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 273] 2017
► pp. 125–143
Accepting remote proposals
Published online: 24 May 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.273.07lin
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.273.07lin
This study focuses on the preferred sequence trajectory of remote proposals. A remote proposal is a request, invitation, or related proposal that cannot be immediately satisfied. The data consists of 34 remote proposal sequences drawn from recordings of Swedish telephone conversations. The analysis shows that although remote proposals are formatted as yes no interrogatives, an affirmative response token is insufficient as a claim of alignment with the proposal. An additional unit of talk is required where the accepter enacts a stance that demonstrates a commitment to fulfill the remote proposal.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Remote proposals
- 3.Data
- 4.The social and syntactic design of remote proposals
- 5.Analysis
- 6.Concluding remarks
Notes References
References (24)
Bergmann, Jörg. 1993. “Alarmiertes Verstehen. Kommunikation in Feuerwehrnotrufen [Alarming understandings. Communication in calls to the fire department].” In Wirklichkeit im Deutungsprozeß. Verstehen und Methoden in den Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften [Reality in Interpretive Processes. Understanding and Methods in the Cultural and Social Sciences], ed. by Thomas Jung and Stefan Müller-Doohm, 283–328. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.
Clayman, Steven E., and John Heritage. 2014. “Benefactors and Beneficiaries: Benefactive Status and Stance in the Management of Offers and Requests.” In Requesting in Social Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Paul Drew, 55–86. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
. 1988. “Explanations as Accounts: A Conversation Analytic Perspective.” In Understanding Everyday Explanation: A Casebook of Methods, ed. by Charles Antaki, 127–144. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. "The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Assessment Sequences." Social Psychology Quarterly 68 (1): 15–38.
. 2012. “Navigating Epistemic Landscapes: Acquiescence, Agency and Resistance in Responses to Polar Questions.” In Questions. Formal, Functional, and Interactional Perspectives, ed. by Jan P. De Ruiter, 179–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Houtkoop Steenstra, Hanneke. 1987. Establishing Agreement: An Analysis of Proposal-Acceptance Sequences. Doctoral dissertation. Universiteit van Amsterdam. Dordrecht: Foris.
Jefferson, Gail. 1983. “Notes on Some Orderlinesses of Overlap Onset.” In Discourse Analysis and Natural Rhetoric, ed. by Valentina D'Urso and Paola Leonardi, 11–38. Padua: Cleup Editore.
Labov, William, and David Fanshel. 1977. Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.
Lindström, Anna. 1994. “Identification and Recognition in Swedish Telephone Conversation Openings.” Language in Society 23: 231–252.
. 1997. Designing Social Actions: Grammar, Prosody, and Interaction in Swedish Conversation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, California.
Pomerantz, Anita M. 1975. Second Assessments: A Study of Some Features of Agreements/Disagreements. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Irvine, California.
. 1984. “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Raymond, Geoffrey. 2000. The Structure of Responding. Type-Conforming and Noncomforming Responses to YNIs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, California.
. 2003. “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Type Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review 68: 939–967.
Sacks, Harvey. 1987 [1973]. “On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation.” In Talk and Social Organization, ed. by Graham Button and John Lee, 54–69. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1972. Sequencing in conversational openings. In Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication, ed. by J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes, 346–380. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. A Primer in Conversation Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stevanovic, Melisa, and Anssi Peräkylä. 2012. “Deontic Authority in Interaction: The Right to Announce, Propose, and Decide.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45: 297–321.
Stevanovic, Melisa. 2013. “Deontic Rights in Interaction: A Conversation Analytic Study on Authority and Cooperation.” Publications of the Department of Social Research 2013:10. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Social Research, University of Helsinki.
Zimmerman, Don H. 2004. “Closing Matters.” Paper presented at the
10th Annual CLIC-LISO Conference
, May 13–15.
Cited by (30)
Cited by 30 other publications
Groß, Alexandra & Malte Rosemeyer
2025. Accountability and type-fittedness as indicators of conditional relevance in interaction. Interactional Linguistics
Hayano, Kaoru
Humă, Bogdana
Alshammari, Bandar & Michael Haugh
Heritage, John & Steven E. Clayman
Hiramoto, Takeshi
Löfgren, Agnes
Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula & Angeliki Alvanoudi
2024. Polar answers. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 34:3 ► pp. 447 ff.
Bolden, Galina B., John Heritage & Marja-Leena Sorjonen
2023. Introduction. In Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 35], ► pp. 1 ff.
Clayman, Steven E & Heidi Kevoe-Feldman
Harjunpää, Katariina & Ana Cristina Ostermann
2023. Responding to polar questions in Brazilian Portuguese. In Responding to Polar Questions across Languages and Contexts [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 35], ► pp. 76 ff.
Löfgren, Agnes & Emily Hofstetter
Rautiainen, Iira, Pentti Haddington & Antti Kamunen
Raymond, Geoffrey, Jie Chen & Kevin A. Whitehead
Vatanen, Anna & Pentti Haddington
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox & Chase Wesley Raymond
Arano, Yusuke
Humă, Bogdana & Elizabeth Stokoe
Humă, Bogdana, Elizabeth Stokoe & Rein Ove Sikveland
Keevallik, Leelo
2018. Making up one’s mind in second position. In Between turn and sequence [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 31], ► pp. 315 ff.
Rauniomaa, Mirka, Esko Lehtonen & Heikki Summala
Seuren, Lucas M.
Haugh, Michael
Haugh, Michael
2024. Ostensible offers, politeness and sincere hypocrisy. In The Pragmatics of Hypocrisy [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 343], ► pp. 162 ff.
Heinemann, Trine & Jakob Steensig
2017. Three imperative action formats in Danish talk-in-interaction. In Imperative Turns at Talk [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 30], ► pp. 139 ff.
Seuren, Lucas M. & Mike Huiskes
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
2015. What does grammar tell us about action?. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 623 ff.
Rauniomaa, Mirka & Trine Heinemann
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 november 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.