The grammar of proposals for joint activities

Abstract

The action of proposing has been studied from various perspectives in research on talk-in-interaction, both in mundane as well as in institutional talk. Aiming to exemplify Interactional Linguistics as a drawing together of insights from Linguistics and Conversation Analysis, we explore the grammar of proposals and the stances displayed by participants in making proposals in the context of joint activities, where a future or hypothetical activity is being put forth as something the speaker and recipient(s) might do together. Close examination of interactions among American English-speaking adults reveals four recurrent grammatical formats for issuing proposals: Let’s, Why don’t we, Modal Declaratives, and Modal Interrogatives. We argue that these four formats for doing proposing within a joint activity are used in socially distinct environments, contributing to a growing understanding of the fit between entrenched linguistic patterns and the social work they have evolved to do.

Subsequent Actions Engendered by the Absence of an Immediate Response to the Proposal in Mandarin Mundane Talk

“…As a social action, proposing is different from other social actions such as requesting, offering, inviting, or suggesting, and “proposing invokes both speaker and recipient in (a) the decision task and (b) the ensuing activity in a way that is mutually beneficial” (Stivers and Sidnell, 2016 : 148). Prior studies on proposal sequences generally focus on (1) actions prior to the proposing turn (Drew, 1984 ; Couper-Kuhlen, 2014 ; Robinson and Kevoe-Feldman, 2016 ); (2) the initial actions of proposing (Drew, 2013 ; Stevanovic, 2013 ; Toerien et al, 2013 ; Couper-Kuhlen, 2014 ; Kushida and Yamakawa, 2015 ; Robinson and Kevoe-Feldman, 2016 ; Stevanovic and Monzoni, 2016 ; Stivers and Sidnell, 2016 ; Stevanovic et al, 2017 ; Stivers et al, 2017 ; Yu and Hao, 2020 ; Thompson et al, 2021 ); (3) responses to a proposal (Davidson, 1984 ; Heritage, 1984a ; Stevanovic, 2012b ; Stevanovic and Peräkylä, 2012 ; Ekberg and LeCouteur, 2015 ; Stevanovic and Monzoni, 2016 ); and (4) subsequent actions after a response to a proposal (Stevanovic, 2012a ; Maynard, 2016 ). For example, Drew ( 1984 : 146) concluded that if a speaker wishes to invite a recipient to come over or do something together, one of the options available is “to hint at an opportunity for some sociability, and leave it to the recipient to propose an arrangement explicitly.” Stivers and Sidnell ( 2016 : 148) examined two common ways that speakers propose a new joint activity with “ Let's X ” and “ How about X ,” in which “ Let's constructions treat the proposed activity as disjunctive with the prior, while How about constructions treat the proposed activity as modifying the ongoing activity.” Additionally, besides an affirmative response token, “a second unit of talk is required where the recipient indexes her stance toward the fulfillment of the remote proposal” (Lindström, 2017 : 142).…”

People with aphasia and their family members proposing joint future activities in everyday conversations: A conversation analytic study

“…In English, proposals of joint future activities are commonly constructed with formats such as Why don't we X and Let's X (where X is the activity proposed), as well as modal declaratives and interrogatives such as We could have dinner tomorrow or Should we make a salad? (Couper‐Kuhlen, 2014; Thompson et al., 2021). The choice of format has been found to depend on the proposal's sequential position in the conversation.…”

“…In a study on children proposing new play activities, Stivers and Sidnell (2016) demonstrated that speakers used a Let's X construction to initiate a new activity, whereas How about X constructions were used to modify ongoing activity. It has also been demonstrated that a speaker chooses among different formats depending on how disposed they think the recipient is towards approving the proposal (Thompson et al., 2021). As regards sequential development, a proposal is prototypically accepted by its recipient, frequently with positive assessment and enthusiasm (Couper‐Kuhlen, 2014).…”

“…Research in conversation analysis (CA) has documented that a social action in typical conversations may be accomplished with varying resources as well as combinations of resources (Levinson & Holler, 2014). For example, the social action of greeting can be done with embodied resources alone (e.g., by establishing eye contact and nodding), whereas other social actions, such as proposing a joint future activity, are typically achieved by producing multi‐word utterances which are referred to as social action formats (Couper‐Kuhlen, 2014; Stivers & Sidnell, 2016; Thompson et al., 2021).…”

Sequence organization of autistic children’s play with caregivers: Rethinking follow-in directives

“…Previous CA work on proposals has explored speaker “rights” to offer proposals and co-determine others’ future actions (Asmuß & Oshima, 2012; Stevanovic & Peräkylä, 2012), how proposal acceptances can mark joint decision-making (Stevanovic, 2021), and how the grammatical features of proposals are linked to the social contexts in which they occur (Thompson, Fox, & Raymond, 2021). When offered during play, proposals provide “solutions” to a recurring problem of what to do next to allow play to continue (Stivers & Sidnell, 2016).…”