The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What does grammar tell us about action?
Open accessAbstract
Using cases of misalignment and realignment in the unfolding of interactional sequences in which future actions and events are being negotiated in everyday English conversation, this paper demonstrates that participants distinguish between the initiating actions of Proposal*, Offer*, Request*, and Suggestion*, if these labels are understood as technical terms for distinct constellations of answers to the questions (i) who will carry out the future action? and (ii) who will benefit from it?. The argument made is that these different action types are routinely associated with different sets of recurrent linguistic forms, or social action formats, and that it is through these that speakers can frame their turns as implementing one action type as opposed to another and that recipients can recognize these actions as such and respond to them accordingly. The fact that there is only a limited amount of ‘polysemy’, or overlap in the formats commonly used for Proposals*, Requests*, Offers*, and Suggestions* in English conversation, means that these formats deliver often distinctive cues to the type of action being implemented. When misalignments and realignments occur, they can often be traced to the fact that ‘polysemous’ linguistic formats have been used to implement the initiating action.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Austin, J. L. (1975) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001 · Cited by 21,496
Searle, J. R. (1969) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173438 · Cited by 11,718
Levinson, S. C. (1983) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511813313 · Cited by 5,137
Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis
Schegloff, E. A. (2007) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511791208 · Cited by 4,684
(1985) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511665868 · Cited by 4,133
A classification of illocutionary acts
Searle, J. R. (1976) · Language in Society · doi:10.1017/s0047404500006837 · Cited by 3,118
Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions: The Case of Let Alone
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O'Connor, M. C. (1988) · Language · doi:10.2307/414531 · Cited by 2,915
Syntax and Semantics:" Vol. 3, "Speech Acts
Parret, H. (1977) · Tijdschrift voor Philosophie · Cited by 1,694
Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis
Schegloff, E. A. (2007) · Cited by 1,673
The Handbook of Conversation Analysis
Buchholz, M. B. (2013) · Language and Psychoanalysis · doi:10.7565/landp.2013.003 · Cited by 1,611
Cited by
Never Say No … How the Brain Interprets the Pregnant Pause in Conversation
Bögels, S., Kendrick, K. H., & Levinson, S. C. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0145474 · Cited by 62
Thunman, E., Ekström, M., & Bruhn, A. (2020) · Administration & Society · doi:10.1177/0095399720907807 · Cited by 32
Opfermann, C., & Pitsch, K. (2017) · 2017 26th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) · doi:10.1109/roman.2017.8172319 · Cited by 12
Opfermann, C., Pitsch, K., Yaghoubzadeh, R., & Kopp, S. (2017) · Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Human Agent Interaction · doi:10.1145/3125739.3125752 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Couper-Kuhlen, E.
- Venue
- Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA)
- Publisher
- John Benjamins Publishing Company
- Published
- 2015-09-01
- Pages
- 623-647
- ISSN
- 1018-2101 (ISSN-L)
- 2406-4238
- OpenAlex
- W2110808938
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 35
- FWCI
- 188.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What does grammar tell us about action? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou
- The paper
- Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015). What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA). https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.3.08cou
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.