Proposal
| Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Proposal | |
|---|---|
| Author(s): | Sandra A. Thompson (University of California, Santa Barbara, USA) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7794-2042) & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (University of Helsinki, Finland) (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2030-6018) |
| To cite: | Thompson, Sandra A. & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. (2023). Proposal. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/9KN2J |
The term proposal has been used with varying denotations in CA/IL. Among the earliest uses were those by Davidson (1984), who mentions proposals in a list of directive actions together with invitations, offers, and requests without further distinguishing them, and Houtkoop (1987), who uses it as a cover term to refer to “a range of actions such as requests, invitations, offers, and the like”. More recently, researchers have used the term more specifically; Stevanovic & Peräkylä (2012) and Stevanovic (2012, 2013, 2015), for example, have employed the term proposal to refer to a type of action often found in the planning of future events and activities whereby a speaker suggests a future course of action but presents its actualization as contingent on the recipient’s approval (Stevanovic 2012: 780). In this understanding, proposals “project joint decision-making” (Stevanovic 2013: 519).
Relatedly, Couper-Kuhlen (2014), in a currently well-accepted descriptive framework, has defined proposal as an action type advocating a future action or activity to be carried out by both speaker and one or more recipients, with costs and benefits for both.
Proposals belong to a family of action types known as directives (Searle 1976), which have in common that they prefer a complying response (Couper-Kuhlen 2014: 624), that is, one which agrees to bring about the future activity. Like other members of this family of actions, proposals involve deonticity, a primary consideration being the negotiation between the proposer and the recipient(s) as to rights and obligations for arriving at decisions concerning future (joint) activities (Stevanovic 2012; Stevanovic & Peräkylä 2012; Zinken & Ogiermann 2011).
Different turn designs can reveal how participants are treating the proposed activity as related to larger ongoing or prior activities. Stivers & Sidnell (2016), for instance, present evidence to show that 4- to 8-year-old English-speaking children commonly use Let’s when orienting to a proposed activity as discrete from the prior one, and How about formats when orienting to a proposed activity as a modification of the ongoing activity. Adult speakers of English can be shown to design their proposals according to what they take to be the recipients’ disposition toward accepting the proposal. Thompson et al. (2021) argue, for example, that a proposal designed with Let’s in English conversation is used when the proposer has evidence that their recipient is likely to agree with the proposal. In this example, Casey and Robin are putting a jigsaw puzzle together. Casey is suggesting that they put aside all the pieces that are only sky pieces, and then upgrades her suggestion to a proposal with Let’s.
(1) [JA Cupcakes 29:39] 01 Casey: I feel like we should leave ss- the ones that have the edges 02 of something else in it 03 Robin: even if it’s (.) a knob? 04 Casey: y[eah I]’d say so like let’s just get the ones that are only sky 05 Robin: [okay ]
Casey has taken charge throughout this entire puzzle constructing activity, to which Robin has readily acceded. So Casey can be relatively certain that Robin will agree to her proposal in this case, too.
When a speaker makes a proposal with an interrogative, though, they are indexing relative uncertainty as to whether the recipient is likely to agree to the proposal, as in (2), where Kayla and Sara are talking about the pan in which they will bake the brownies they are making together:
(2) [JA Brownies: 23] 01 Kayla: oh should we grease it? 02 Sara: oh yeah do you have butter?
In this interaction, no mention has been made of greasing the pan for the brownies, and Kayla has had no indication of whether Sara would be inclined to accept this proposal, so she formulates her proposal with an interrogative, requesting a response from Sara. As with interrogativity in general, an interrogatively formatted proposal displays an awareness of possible contingencies, making the proposal’s acceptance less certain than with the other proposal formats.
Additional Related Entries:
Cited References:
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics 24(3):623-647.
Davidson, J. (1984). Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 102-128). Cambridge University Press.
Houtkoop, H. (1987). Establishing Agreement: An Analysis of Proposal-Acceptance Sequences. Foris Publications.
Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5: 1-23.
Stevanovic, M. (2012). Establishing joint decisions in a dyad. Discourse Studies, 14(6), 779–803.
Stevanovic, M. (2013). Constructing a proposal as a thought: A way to manage problems in the initiation of joint decision-making in Finnish workplace interaction. Pragmatics, 23(3), 1-30.
Stevanovic, M. (2015). Displays of uncertainty and proximal deontic claims: The case of proposal sequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 78, 84-97.
Stevanovic, M. & Peräkylä, A. (2012). Deontic authority in interaction: the right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 297–321.
Stivers, T. & Sidnell, J. (2016). Proposals for activity collaboration. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(2), 148-166.
Thompson, S. A., Fox, B. A., & Raymond, C. W. (2021). The grammar of proposals for joint activities. Interactional Linguistics, 1(1), 123-151.
Zinken, J. & Ogiermann, E. (2011). How to propose an action as objectively necessary: The case of Polish trzeba x (‘one needs to x’). Research on Language and Social Interaction, 44(3), 263-287.
Additional References:
Clayman, S. & Heritage, J. (2014). Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & P. Drew (Eds.), Requesting in Social Interaction (pp. 55-86). John Benjamins.
Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children (see pp. 109-113). Indiana University Press.
Löfgren, A. & Hofstetter, E. (2021). Introversive semiosis in action: depictions in opera rehearsals. Social Semiotics.
