CouperKuhlen2014b
| CouperKuhlen2014b | |
|---|---|
| BibType | INCOLLECTION |
| Key | CouperKuhlen2014b |
| Author(s) | Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, Barbara A. Fox, Sandra A. Thompson |
| Title | Forms of responsivity: Grammatical formats for responding to two types of request in conversation |
| Editor(s) | Susanne Günther, Wolfgang Imo, Jörg Bücker |
| Tag(s) | Responding, Requests, Interactional Linguistics, Grammar, EMCA, Epistemics, Deontic, Sequence organization |
| Publisher | De Gruyter Mouton |
| Year | 2014 |
| Language | English |
| City | Berlin |
| Month | |
| Journal | |
| Volume | |
| Number | |
| Pages | 109–138 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1515/9783110358612.109 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | Linguistik — Impulse & Tendenzen |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | Grammar and Dialogism: Sequential, Syntactic, and Prosodic Patterns between Emergence and Sedimentation |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
The paper reports on findings from an empirical study of responsive actions in English conversation, substantiating Linell’s remarks on responsivity and refining his framework. It argues that there are different norms for the grammatical form of a response depending on the type of first action it is responsive to, exemplified here with respect to Requests for information (formatted with question words) and Requests for action. Six different response formats are identified, constituting different forms of responsivity. It is argued that which of these is the grammatical norm for responding to requests cannot be explained by a principle of “type conformity”; instead, the relevant dimensions for shaping a response are sensitive to whether the ‘engine’ driving the sequence is epistemic or deontic. The forms of responsivity are instrumental in construing not only what one is doing (viz. complying or not) but also from what position (dependent or independent) one is doing it.
Notes
