Negotiation of entitlement in proposal sequences

Discourse Studies

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 67-86

  Asmuß, Birte ^a   Oshima, Sae ^a  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

Author keywords

affiliation; alignment; conversation analysis; entitlement; institutional roles; meetings; multimodality; proposals

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857812594     PISSN: 14614456     EISSN: 14617080     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1461445611427215     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Asmuß B.What do people expect from public services? Requests in public service encounters.Journal of Language and Communication Studies. 2007;38:65-83.
2. Asmuß B (2011) Proposing shared knowledge as a means of pursuing agreement. In: Stivers T, Lorenza M and Steensig J (eds) The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 207-234.
3. Asmuß B,Svennevig J.Meeting talk: An introduction.Journal of Business Communication. 2009;46 (1): 3-22.
4. Boden DThe Business of Talk: Organizations in Action. Cambridge: Polity; 1994:.
5. Clark C and Pinch T (2010) Some major organizational consequences of some 'minor' organised conduct: Evidence from a video analysis of preverbal service encounters in a showroom retail store. In: Llewellyn N and Hindmarsh J (eds) Organisation, Interaction and Practice: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 140-171.
6. Craven A,Potter J.Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action.Discourse Studies. 2010;12 (4): 419-442.
7. Curl T,Drew P.Contingency and action: A comparison of two forms of requesting.Research on Language & Social Interaction. 2008;41 (2): 129-153.
8. Davidson JA (1984) Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In: Atkinson JM and Heritage J (eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57-101.
9. Deppermann A,Mondada L,Schmitt R.Planned and contingent action: A detailed analysis of a meeting's pause.Journal of Pragmatics. 2010;42:1700-1718.
10. Garcia A.Interactional constraints on proposal generation in negotiation hearings: A preliminary investigation.Discourse & Society. 1997;8:219-247.
11. Hayano K (2011) Giving support to the claim of epistemic primacy: Yo-marked assessments in Japanese. In: Stivers T, Lorenza M and Steensig J (eds) The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 58-81.
12. Clark C and Pinch T (2010) Some major organizational consequences of some 'minor' organised conduct: Evidence from a video analysis of preverbal service encounters in a showroom retail store. In: Llewellyn N and Hindmarsh J (eds) Organisation, Interaction and Practice: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 140-171.
13. Heinemann T.'Will you or can't you?': Displaying entitlement in interrogative requests.Journal of Pragmatics. 2006;38:1081-1104.
14. Heinemann T.Participation and exclusion in third party complaints.Journal of Pragmatics. 2009;41:2435-2451.
15. Heinemann T, Lindström A and Steensig J (2011) Addressing epistemic incongruence in
16. Heritage JGarfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1984:.
17. Houtkoop-Steenstra HEstablishing Agreement: An Analysis of Proposal Acceptance Sequences. Dordrecht and Providence, RI: Foris Publications; 1987:.
18. Laakso M and Tykkyläinen T (2009) Gendered practices of negotiation? Comparing girls and boys' practices of making proposals in same-sex peer play. In: Haakana M, Laakso M and Lindström J (eds) Talk in interaction: Comparative Dimensions. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society, 279-298.
19. Lindström A (1999) Language as social action: Grammar, prosody, and interaction in Swedish conversation. Skrifter utgivna av Institutionen för nordiska språk, Uppsala universitet 46, Diss. Uppsala.
20. 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: Hakulinen A and Selting M (eds) Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 209-230.
21. Lindström A,Heinemann T.Good enough: Low-grade assessments in caregiving situations.Research on Language and Social Interaction. 2009;42 (4): 309-328.
22. Maynard DInside Plea Bargaining: The Language of Negotiation. New York: Plenum; 1984:.
23. Mondada L (2007) Operating together through videoconference: Members' procedures for accomplishing a common space of action. In: Hester S and Francis D (eds) Orders of Ordinary Action. Aldershot: Ashgate, 51-67.
24. Nevile M and Rendle-Short J (2009) A conversation analysis view of communication as jointly accomplished social interaction: An unsuccessful proposal for a social visit. In: Haugh M and Liddicoat A (eds) Conceptualizing Communication. Special Issue, Australian Journal of Linguistics 29: 75-89.
25. Pomerantz A (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In: Atkinson JM and Heritage J (eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57-101.
26. Pomerantz A and Denvir P (2007) Enacting the institutional role of chairperson in upper management meetings: The interactional realization of provisional authority. In: Cooren F (ed.) Interacting and Organizing: Analyses of a Management Meeting. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 31-51.
27. Raymond G.Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding.American Sociological Review. 2003;68:939-967.
28. Sacks H,Schegloff EA,Jefferson G.A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.Language. 1974;50 (4): 696-735.
29. Steensig J (in press) Affiliation and alignment. In: Chapelle CA (ed.) Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
30. Steensig J,Drew P.Introduction: Questioning and affiliation/disaffiliation in interaction.Discourse Studies. 2008;10 (1): 5-15.
31. Stivers T.Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation.Research on Language & Social Interaction. 2008;41 (1): 31-57.
32. Stivers T,Sidnell J.Introduction: Multimodal interaction.Semiotica. 2005;:1-20.
33. Stivers T, Mondada L and Steensig J (2011) Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In: Stivers T, Lorenza M and Steensig J (eds) The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3-24.
34. Streeck J.A body and its gestures.Gesture. 2002;2 (1): 19-44.
35. Vöge M.Local identity processes in business meetings displayed through laughter in complaint sequences.Journal of Pragmatics. 2010;42:1556-1576.