Issues in Action Formation: Requests and the Problem with x

Abstract

Abstract:In previous interactional studies of formats for utterances doing requests, attention has been given to the initial verb (such as can/could or wonder) and possibly the subject (especially I vs you). The current study examines the main types of grammatical variation found in what we call the "x component," that is the segment after the initial verb and subject. We examine two types of requests: those with can you x and those with wonder x, and we find that variations in the x component in these requests are associated with variations in the unfolding development of the request sequences. We thus suggest that the x component is crucial to the interactional work accomplished by the requesting utterance.

Modulating action through minimization: Syntax in the service of offering and requesting

“…The action of supplying the price (lines 75–79) is sequentially preliminary (Tersaki 2004) to finalizing the service (i.e. of the shoe-shop cleaning the shoes) and makes relevant acceptance or rejection from the customer (Fox & Heinemann 2017). The customer accepts the price, “ o kay,” (line 82), which sequentially constitutes a go-ahead (Schegloff 2007) for the shoetender to finalize the service.…”

“…As in extract (4), here the shoetender's announcement of the price (lines 8–9)—which is completed while gazing at the customer, a practice which can mobilize recipiency (Figure 5c; Stivers & Rossano 2010)—is preliminary to finalizing the service, and makes relevant acceptance or rejection from the customer (Fox & Heinemann 2017). When the customer does not immediately produce a response (at line 10)—which can project possible rejection (Schegloff 2007; Pomerantz & Heritage 2013)—the shoetender pursues a response with an increment (line 11; Ford, Fox, & Thompson 2002; Schegloff 2016), and then by informing the customer about the likely material to be used during the repair: “and we'd put somethin’ like th i s on.” (line 13).…”

“…In a similar methodological vein, we begin our analysis by considering a collection of recordings made at a North American shoe-repair shop (Fox & Heinemann 2015, 2016, 2017, 2019) because, as an institution, it provides a relatively circumscribed, and thus ‘controlled’, context (in terms of participants’ identities, roles, goals, etc.) in which to begin our analysis (see Drew & Heritage 1992).…”

“…Thompson & Couper-Kuhlen 2005; Curl 2006; Fox 2007; Heritage 2012b,c; Couper-Kuhlen 2014; C. Raymond 2017), as well as resources of the body (e.g. Sorjonen & Raevaara 2014; Fox & Heinemann 2017; Mondada 2017; Keevallik 2018).…”

“…more likely to be granted), and I wonder when they assess the outcome to be relatively contingent (i.e. less likely to be granted; Fox & Heinemann 2017). Most relevant to the present article, Curl (2006) observes that offers formatted with do you want…?…”