Establishing joint decisions in a dyad

Stevanovic, Melisa

doi:10.1177/1461445612456654

Cited by 87 publications

(121 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Announcement offers are not simply declarations of plans (Suchman, 1987) or unilateral decisions (Stevanovic, 2012). They still contain the crucial aspects of an offer -displaying willingness to do an action on behalf of the recipient.…”

Section: Announcement Offersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Offers of assistance in politician–constituent interaction

Hofstetter

Stokoe

2015

Discourse Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do politicians engage with and offer to assist their constituents; the people who vote them into power? We address the question by analyzing a corpus of 80 interactions recorded at the office of a Member of Parliament (MP) in the United Kingdom, and comprising telephone calls between constituents and the MP's clerical 'caseworkers' as well as face to face encounters with MPs in their fortnightly 'surgeries'. The data were transcribed, then analysed using conversation analysis, focusing on the design and placement of offers of assistance. We identified three types of offers within a longer 'offering' sequence: 1) 'proposal offers', which typically appear first in any offering sequence, in which politicians and caseworkers make proposals to help their constituents using formats that request permission to do so, or check that the constituent does indeed want help (e.g., "do you want me to"; "we could…"); 2) 'announcement offers', which appear second, and indicate that something has been decided and confirm the intention to act (e.g., "I will do X"), and 3) 'request offers', which appear third, and take for form "let me do X". Request offers indicate that the offer is available but cannot be completed until the current conversation is closed; they also appear in environments in which the constituent reissues their problems and appears dissatisfied with the offers so far. The paper contributes to what we know about making offers in institutional settings, as well as shedding the first empirical light on the workings of the constituency office: the site of engagement between everyday members of the public and their elected representatives.

show abstract

Section: Announcement Offersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Offers of assistance in politician–constituent interaction

Hofstetter

Stokoe

2015

Discourse Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some other studies have, for their part, investigated decision making and organisational planning, concentrating on actions -such as directives -occurring regularly in workplace meeting interaction (e.g. Asmuß and Oshima, 2012;Stevanovic, 2012;Svennevig and Djordjilovic, 2015; see also Bolander and Sandberg, 2013). Nonetheless, they have largely focused on single conversations where the activities at hand are completed then and there.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By doing so, they comprise predicting and outlining the forthcoming activities of the organisation, and in terms of social action, this future-oriented talk commonly materialises as proposal sequences (e.g. Stevanovic, 2012Stevanovic, , 2013. In proposals, one of the participants nominates a future action and suggests that it will be realised -the action in question is shown to be contingent on the approval of the recipients (Houtkoop, 1987).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spelling out consequences: Conditional constructions as a means to resist proposals in organisational planning process

Nissi

2016

Discourse Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organisational planning processes often materialise as a series of meetings, where the future of the organisation is jointly discussed and negotiated as a part of local decision making sequences. Using conversation and discourse analytical approaches, this article investigates how proposals concerning the future can also be resisted by employing a specific device, a conditional construction (if X, then Y). The data for the study originate from a city organisation, whose customer services are being developed. The results show how the conditional constructions work in two interrelated ways. Firstly, by introducing a problematic hypothetical situation, they outline the undesirable consequences of the proposed idea in real work life. Secondly, by highlighting the experience of the customer, they present the organisation as benefitting from the potential rejection of the idea. The article discusses the implications of the results for the study of proposal and decision making sequences in longitudinal, multisemiotic discursive processes.

show abstract

“…One of these courses is favoured; the other, not. The effect of the utterance is to issue a recommendation at best, or a threat at worst; but in any case, it is a directive, claiming some form of deontic authority, in the terminology suggested by Stevanovic (2012), and Stevanovic and Peräkylä (2012). As we shall see, there is a puzzle about how the adults set out the alternatives in one of those formats, and solving it that will be the focus of our analysis.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Work on requesting in interaction (Lindström, 2005;Heinemann, 2006;Curl and Drew, 2008) has prompted an acceleration of interest in the varieties of ways of influencing others: from (to use rough glosses) hinting , through advising (Shaw and Hepburn, 2013), to proposing (Stevanovic 2012, Stevanovic andPeräkylä, 2012), instructing (Antaki and Kent, 2012) and outright threatening (Hepburn and Potter, 2011; see also a quantitative survey of many these types in Takada 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Offering alternatives as a way of issuing directives to children: Putting the worse option last

Antaki

Kent

2015

Journal of Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a corpus of c. 250 hours of recorded interactions between young children and adults in USA and UK households, we found that children could be directed to change their course of action by three syntactic formats that offered alternatives: an imperative, or a modal declarative, plus a consequential alternative to non-compliance (e.g. come down at once or I shall send you straight to bed; you've got to stand here with it or it goes back in the cupboard), or an interrogative requiring a preference (e.g. do you want to put them neatly in the corner for mummy please or do you wanna go to bed). Formatted syntactically as or-alternatives, these can perform the actions both of warning and threatening. But they make a 'bad' course of action contiguous to the child's turn. We argue that adults choose this format because the interactional preference for contiguity makes the negative alternative the more salient one. This implies that adults attribute to children the ability to appreciate the flouting of preference organisation for deontic effect.Offering alternatives as a way of issuing directives to children: putting the worse option last REVISION 3 January 2015Length = 8108 words Charles Antaki (1) and Alexandra Kent (2) ( course of action contiguous to the child's turn. We argue that adults choose this format because the interactional preference for contiguity makes the negative alternative the more salient one. This implies that adults attribute to children the ability to appreciate the flouting of preference organisation for deontic effect. As Stevanovic and Svennevig (this volume) say, this Special Issue adds to the body of research by reporting new work on the epistemic and deontic subtleties of the ways in which directives can be issued. In this article we explore how adults use an utterance the syntactic form of which offers children alternative courses of action to choose between; but which, on inspection of their deployment, can be seen to perform a less neutral action.To prefigure the data that we shall analyse, examples of the three types of directives that we found in our survey of various data sources are: you've got to stand here with it or it goes back in the cupboard; come down at once or I shall send you straight to bed; and do you want to put them neatly in the corner for mummy please or do you wanna go to bed. These directives use different syntactic formats, but the common thread among them is the action that the adult is performing: issuing an utterance that confronts the child with two exclusive courses of action. One of these courses is favoured; the other, not. The effect of the utterance is to issue a recommendation at best, or a threat at worst; but in any case, it is a directive, claiming some form of deontic authority, in the terminology suggested by Stevanovic (2012), and Stevanovic and Peräkylä (2012). As we shall see, there is a puzzle about how the adults set out the alternatives in one of those formats, and solving it that will be the focus of our analysis. 4 Requests, dir...

show abstract

Establishing joint decisions in a dyad

Cited by 87 publications

References 41 publications

Offers of assistance in politician–constituent interaction

Offers of assistance in politician–constituent interaction

Spelling out consequences: Conditional constructions as a means to resist proposals in organisational planning process

Offering alternatives as a way of issuing directives to children: Putting the worse option last

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About