How to propose an action as objectively necessary: The case of Polish Trzeba x ("One needs to x")

Research on Language and Social Interaction

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 263-287

  Zinken, Jörg ^a   Ogiermann, Eva ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79961235283     PISSN: 08351813     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08351813.2011.591900     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Betz, E., & Golato, A. (2008). Remembering relevant information and withholding relevant next actions: The German token "achja." Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41, 58-98.
2. Bickel, B., Comrie, B., & Haspelmath, M. (2008). The Leipzig glossing rules. Conventions for interlinear morphemeby-morpheme glosses. Retrieved from http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php
3. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
4. Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5, 196-213.
5. Borek, A. (2009, September). Is "ja" necessarily redundant? The use of free-standing first person pronoun in Polish. Paper presented at the Conference on Everyday Interaction across Cultures, Portsmouth (UK).
6. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Ford, C. E. (2004). Sound patterns in interaction. Cross-linguistic studies from conversation. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
7. Craven, A., & Potter, J. (2010). Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, 12, 419-442.
8. Curl, T. S., & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action. A comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41, 129-153.
9. Egbert, M., & Vöge, M. (2008). Wh-interrogative formats used for questioning and beyond: German warum (why) and wieso (why) and English why. Discourse Studies, 10, 17-36.
10. Enfield, N. J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2007). Person reference in interaction: Linguistic, cultural, and social perspectives. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
11. Enfield, N. J., Stivers, T., & Levinson, S. C. (2010). Question-response sequences in conversation across ten languages: An introduction. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2615-2619.
12. Fox, B. A., Hayashi, M., & Jasperson, R. (1996). Resources and repair: A cross-linguistic study of syntax and repair. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 185-237). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
13. Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489-1522.
14. Goodwin, C. (2002). Time in action. Current Anthropology, 43, S19-S35.
15. Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-said-she-said. Talk as social organization among black children. Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press.
16. Goodwin, M. H. (2006). Participation, affect, and trajectory in family directive/response sequences. Text & Talk, 26, 513-541.
17. Hakulinen, A., & Selting, M. (Eds.). (2005). Syntax and lexis in conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction. Amsterdam, The Netherlands & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
18. Hansen, B. (2000). The German modal verb müssen and the Slavonic languages-The reconstruction of a success story. Scando-Slavica, 46, 77-92.
19. Hayashi, M. (2003). Joint utterance construction in Japanese conversation. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
20. Hockett, C. F. (1954). Chinese versus English: An exploration of the Whorfian theses. In H. Hoijer (Ed.), Language in culture. Conference on the interrelations of language and other aspects of culture (pp. 106-123). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
21. Keevallik, L. (2010). Marking boundaries between activities: The particle nii in Estonian. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43, 157-182.
22. Lerner, G. H. (1996). Finding "face" in the preference structures of talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 303-321.
23. Lerner, G. H. (2003). Selecting next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society, 32, 177-201.
24. Lerner, G. H., & Kitzinger, C. (2007). Extraction and aggregation in the repair of individual and collective self-reference. Discourse Studies, 9, 526-557.
25. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press
26. Lindström, A. (2005). Language as social action: A study of how senior citizens request assistance with practical tasks in the Swedish home help service. In A. Hakulinen &M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation (pp. 209-233). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Benjamins.
27. Lindström, A. (2009). Projecting nonalignment in conversation. In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives (pp. 135-158). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
28. Nuyts, J., Byloo, P., & Diepeveen, J. (2010). On deontic modality, directivity, and mood: The case of Dutch mogen and moeten. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 16-34.
29. Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.). (1996). Interaction and grammar. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
30. Ogiermann, E. (2009). Politeness and in-directness across cultures: A comparison of English, German, Polish and Russian requests. Journal of Politeness Research, 5, 189-216.
31. Oh, S.-Y. (2005). English zero anaphora as an interactional resource. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38, 267-302.
32. Oh, S.-Y. (2007). Overt reference to speaker and recipient in Korean. Discourse Studies, 9, 462-492.
33. Park, Y. (2009). Interaction between grammar and multimodal resources: Quoting different characters in Korean multiparty conversation. Discourse Studies, 11, 79-104.
34. Pomerantz, A. (1980). Telling my side: "limited access" as a fishing device. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 186-198.
35. 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, England: Cambridge University Press.
36. Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68, 939-967.
37. Rossano, F., Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). Gaze, questioning, and culture. In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives (pp. 187-249). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
38. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
39. Schegloff, E. A. (1995). Discourse as interactional achievement III: The omnirelevance of action. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28, 185-211.
40. Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52-133). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
41. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
42. Schegloff, E. A. (2009). One perspective on Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives. In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives (pp. 357-406). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
43. Selting, M., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.). (2001). Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
44. Sidnell, J. (2007). Comparative studies in conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 36, 229-244.
45. Sidnell, J. (2009a). Comparative perspectives in conversation analysis. In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives (pp. 3-27). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
46. Sidnell, J. (2009b). Language-specific resources in repair and assessments. In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives (pp. 304-325). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
47. Sidnell, J. (Ed.). (2009c). Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
48. Sidnell, J., & Enfield, N. J. (in press). Language diversity and social action: A third locus of linguistic relativity. Current Anthropology.
49. Sorjonen, M.-L. (1996). On repeats and responses in Finnish conversations. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 277-327). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
50. Stivers, T. (2004). "No no no" and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research, 30, 260-293.
51. Stivers, T. (2008). Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41, 31-57.
52. Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43, 3-31.
53. Stivers, T., & Sidnell, J. (2005). Introduction: Multi-modal interaction. Semiotica, 156, 1-20.
54. Streeck, J. (2009). Gesturecraft: The manufacture of meaning. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
55. Tanaka, H. (1999). Turn-taking in Japanese conversation. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
56. Tanaka, H. (2000). Turn projection in Japanese talk-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33, 1-38.
57. Tanaka, H. (2005). Grammar and the "timing" of social action: Word order and preference organization in Japanese. Language in Society, 34, 389-430.