In:Requesting in Social Interaction
Edited by Paul Drew and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 26] 2014
► pp. 115–144
On divisions of labor in request and offer environments
Published online: 17 December 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26.05cou
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.26.05cou
Dividing the labor for achieving a common goal is a routinized practice that is found in both request and offer environments in English and Finnish everyday conversations. There are specific linguistic resources deployed in the two languages for this practice. Divisions of labor are typically proposed with a bi-partite construction that consists schematically of a Request to Other to carry out some action X, and a Commitment by Self to carry out a complementary action Y. Where there is a possible chronological order for the actions X and Y, the request and commitment are ordered accordingly. Although in both languages there is a common schematic structure underlying the linguistic constructions used in proposing divisions of labor, the attested patterns vary in the degree of certainty that they express concerning the future actions. In addition, the patterns in Finnish vary in the explicitness with which the agents of the future actions are expressed. In neither of the languages are the variant patterns interchangeable. Instead, the patterns have distinct sequential home environments: the more certainty and explicitness the pattern expresses, the later in the sequence it occurs. Division-of labor proposals divide not only the labor, but also deontic primacy (the right to decide) and responsibility. By construing the venture as a joint one, they transform asymmetric actions such as offers and requests into more symmetric ones. This may explain why divisions of labor typically occur in request and offer sequences that are problematic and run the risk of miscarrying.
References (21)
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2014. “What Can Grammar Tell Us about Action?” Pragmatics 24 (3): 435–452.
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Marja Etelämäki. Forthcoming. “Nominated Actions and Their Targeted Agents in Finnish Conversational Directives”. To appear in “Epistemics and Deontics in Conversational Directives”, ed. by Jan Svennevig, and Melisa Stevanovic. Journal of Pragmatics.
Craven, Alexandra, and Jonathan Potter. 2010. “Directives: Entitlement and Contingency in Action.” Discourse Studies 12 (4): 419–442.
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
Curl, Traci S. 2006. “Offers of Assistance: Constraints on Syntactic Design.” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1257–1280.
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.
Drew, Paul. 2013. "Conversation Analysis and Social Action." Journal of Foreign Languages 37 (3): 1–20.
Hepburn, Alexa, and Galina B. Bolden. 2013. “The Conversation Analytic Approach to Transcription.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 57–76. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
ISK = Auli Hakulinen, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen, and Irja Alho. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi [Finnish descriptive grammar]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
Koivisto, Aino. 2013. “On the Preference for Remembering: Acknowledging an Answer with Finnish ai nii (n) ('Oh that's right').” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46 (3): 277–297.
. 2006. “Zero Person in Finnish. A Grammatical Resource for Construing Human Reference.” In Grammar from the Human Perspective. Case, Space and Person in Finnish, ed. by Marja-Liisa Helasvuo, and Lyle Campbell, 209–232. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar. A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Laury, Ritva. 2012. “Syntactically Non-integrated Finnish jos ‘if’ Conditional Clauses as Directives.” Discourse Processes 49: 213–242.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sidnell, Jack, and N.J. Enfield. 2012. “Language Diversity and Social Action: A Third Locus of Linguistic Relativity.” Current Anthropology 53 (3): 302–333.
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001. Responding in Conversation. A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
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.
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. In press. Grammar and Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cited by (9)
Cited by nine other publications
Vatanen, Anna & Pentti Haddington
Raymond, Chase Wesley
Harjunpää, Katariina
2021. Brokering co-participants’ volition in request and offer
sequences. In Intersubjectivity in Action [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 326], ► pp. 135 ff.
Mondada, Lorenza
Lindström, Jan, Camilla Lindholm, Inga-Lill Grahn & Martina Huhtamäki
2020. Consecutive clause combinations in instructing activities. In Emergent Syntax for Conversation [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 32], ► pp. 245 ff.
Etelämäki, Marja & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2017. In the face of resistance. In Imperative Turns at Talk [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 30], ► pp. 215 ff.
Keevallik, Leelo
2017. Negotiating deontic rights in second position. In Imperative Turns at Talk [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 30], ► pp. 271 ff.
Rauniomaa, Mirka
2017. Assigning roles and responsibilities. In Imperative Turns at Talk [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 30], ► pp. 325 ff.
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
2015. What does grammar tell us about action?. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 623 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 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.