\nUniversity of Padua, Italy
\n<sara.gesuato
![\"atmark\"](\"http:\/\/www.tesl-ej.org\/atmark.png\")
unipd.it><\/p>\n\nAbstract<\/h3>\n
This paper addressed the under-investigated question whether speech act moves can be identified and classified in conversation by examining the content, positioning, and strategic role of utterances in turns and turn sequences. To this end, offering exchanges were analysed in the transcripts of 31 open role-plays. These were elicited from American native speakers through written prompts, and exemplified dialogues between interactants differing in terms of social distance and degree of power. In the data examined, the offerers and the offerees produced conversation management moves for opening, closing, and sustaining the interaction (e.g., summoning vs responding to summons), and goal-furthering moves for negotiating the offering exchange in line with their complementary initiating vs responding discursive and speech-act roles (e.g., motivating the offer vs the reaction to it). The study revealed that: the strategies realizing offers and reactions to them were similar across interactional role-relationships; clusters of moves showed preferred sequencing patterns; the interlocutors actively cooperated towards the co-construction of their interaction; and function-detecting heuristic prompts were particularly useful for the identification of moves in turns. Pedagogical implications were drawn from the findings, showing how model scripts may help language learners become familiar with the interactional strategies called for in goal-oriented communication.<\/p>\n
Keywords<\/strong>: Offers, Speech Acts, Moves, Interaction, Dialogue<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Speech Act Exchanges<\/h3>\n
In dialogic interaction, participants are jointly responsible for the content, structure, effectiveness, and acceptability of the communicative event they are involved in. In goal-oriented communication, in particular, cooperative participants contribute mutually relevant turns that develop and bring to a conclusion their inter-action. Such goal-oriented dialogic communication is often exemplified in oral speech acts: a spontaneous or elicited initiating act usually tips the balance of social debts and credits in favour of one interlocutor, and thus primes for a relevant reaction from the other interlocutor. Such a response either acknowledges the newly created imbalance or restores the balance of the relationship between the interlocutors, and ensures a mutually satisfactory conclusion of the exchange. The initiating and the reacting acts thus form a speech act complementary sequence. The exchange may develop into an even longer sequence as the goal orientation of the initiating speech act unfolds and comes to a close through multiple contributions of the reacting participant, who moves forward, sustains, and ratifies the previous bid for interaction. Such a two-party construction of communication also applies to offering exchanges.
\n<\/a>
\nAn offering exchange is a sequence of verbal actions representing the speaker-offerer as the benefactor, and the addressee-offeree as the beneficiary, with regard to a future distribution of benefits and\/or costs. In the initiating action, the offerer earns credits through volunteering to act in favour of the offeree (Couper-Kuhlen, 2014). This often involves referring to the recipient\u2019s interests, specifying who is to provide vs receive the offered item, expressing cost minimisations and\/or other details of the future action (Clayman & Heritage, 2015). The offeree can then contribute to developing and bringing to a close that transactional bid for interaction by accepting the offered item, motivating their inability to accept it, and\/or negotiating the terms of the proposed delivery of the offered good\/service until an agreement is reached. Therefore, an offer opens a collaborative, interactionally negotiated project, or action plan, with a preparatory phase and a delivery phase (Levinson, 2013, p. 120), consisting of several \u201cinterdigitated\u201d steps produced by the interlocutors (p. 126). Following Clayman and Heritage (2015, p. 3), it can be described as \u201ca temporally extended work-in-progress that is managed through the serial interlocking of actions in a process of successive confirmation and specification.\u201d [1<\/a>]
\n<\/a>
\nThe elaboration of the offering speech act exchange mostly depends on the extent to which the reacting participant shares the initiating participant\u2019s perception (i.e., understanding and appreciation) of the terms of the initiating speech act: the more divergent the interlocutors\u2019 views are on the value, desirability, legitimacy and\/or clarity of the orientation of the interaction, the longer their negotiation of those terms will be. In offers, convergence of views and actions may have to be negotiated in three respects. First, the offering illocution itself is a conditional promise, which verbalises the offerer\u2019s willingness to provide the offeree with a good\/service that is expected<\/em> to be desirable, but pending<\/em> the offeree\u2019s approval: no offered item will be provided unless the offeree perceives it as desirable and declares it legitimate to deliver. Also, the actual delivery of the offered good\/service requires both parties\u2019 cooperation so that they may come to agree on, for example, how, where and when to provide\/access it, and how costly and beneficial it may be. Finally, there may be lack of congruity between who is formally framed as the benefactor vs beneficiary and the actual status of the participants in the projected action (Clayman & Heritage, 2014). [2<\/a>] The discussion of the benefactive dimensions of the projected action through negotiation-oriented interaction may thus lead to a multi-turn exchange.<\/p>\nIn this study, I describe how interlocutors negotiate the terms of the adequacy and provision\/acceptance of goods\/services in elicited dialogic interactions pivoting on the offering illocution and the response to it. I illustrate the moves that both interactants contribute so as to initiate, advance, and conclude their exchanges, and present criteria for motivating the identification and classification of those moves. I first contextualise my research focus with a brief overview of the literature on speech act exchanges and offering speech acts. After outlining the data collection procedure, I describe my qualitative and quantitative methods of analysis and report on the findings. Finally, I discuss the pedagogical implications of the results and draw general conclusions from the study.<\/p>\n
Literature Review<\/h3>\n
As Geis (1995) showed through his Dynamic Speech Act Theory, a satisfactory account of speech act behaviour needs to proceed from a conversation analytic perspective. In spontaneous (face-to-face) communication, interactants co-construct their speech act discourse with initiating and sustaining\/responding moves \u2013 sometimes over several turns \u2013 meant to satisfy transactional and interpersonal needs within a specific situational domain. Each micro contribution to discourse furthers the goal(s) of the interaction in its domain-specific, face-work-related, or exchange-related aspects.<\/p>\n
Corpus-based studies of conversational speech act behaviour have indeed revealed how oral interaction is gradually developed by the participants. Edmondson and House (1981) examined the strategies, formulations, prosodic features, and conversational sequencing of the moves realizing apologies, complaints, congratulations, offers, requests, and thanks, and the verbal reactions to them. The authors showed how speech act moves are variously realised, and how these systematically and relevantly co-pattern with the conversation partner\u2019s turns. Similarly, Aijmer (1996) described conversational speech act behaviour along such discursive dimensions as (non)implicit, (non)emotional strategies; lexico-grammatical and prosodic formulations; combinatorial patterns of strategies and formulations; and correlations between formal and situational features of speech acts, and their interactional, social, and textual functions. Her analysis illustrated responding speech acts (e.g., gratitude acknowledgements) and multi-turn speech act sequences.<\/p>\n
Other scholars have investigated how specific responding speech acts complement the initiating illocutions they react to, thus accounting for apology responses (Adrefiza & Jones, 2013; Murphy, 2016), compliment responses (Cirillo, 2012; Eslami & Derakhshan, 2020; Golato, 2003; Hornoio, 2017; Ishihara, 2010; Shaibani & Zeinali, 2015; Sa\u2019d, 2015; Sarkhosh & Alizadeh, 2017; Schr\u00f6der & Schneider, 2018), criticism responses (Nguyen, 2017), health inquiry responses (Chen, 2018) request responses (Garc\u00eda, 1993; Ifert & Roloff, 1996; Rauniomaa & Keisanen, 2012; Rendle-Short, 2015; Verzella & Tommaso, 2020), invitation responses (Garc\u00eda, 1996; Rendle-Short, 2015), threat responses (Geluykens & Limberg, 2012), gratitude responses (Bieswanger, 2015; Curikova, 2008; Farenkia, 2012, 2018; Gesuato, 2016; R\u00fcegg, 2014; Schneider, 2005), complaint responses (Eslami-Rasekh, 2004; Ekstr\u00f6m & Lundstr\u00f6m, 2014; Hopkinson, 2017) and refusals of requests, invitations and offers (Saud, 2019). These studies showed that responding speech acts are not routinized \u201cknee-jerk\u201d reactions to initiating speech acts. Instead, they vary both in their pragmalinguistic and in their sociopragmatic manifestations.<\/p>\n
Researchers have also examined the components and sequencing of offering sequences in English interactions. (For a partial review of the literature on offers, see Gesuato, 2015.) Some studies have highlighted the interactional context<\/em> where offers are produced. For instance, Edmondson and House (1981) observed how offers could initiate exchanges or serve as reactions to requests, complaints, offers or the granting of permission. Curl (2006) illustrated how offering head acts might be found: after conversation openings or the reference to the issue the offerer wants to address, in the closing sections of conversations, or be produced right after talk about problems. Davidson (1984, 1990) explained how revised versions of offers, and thus possibly new offering sequences, could occur after offers are perceived as problematic because followed by, for example, silence, hesitations, weak agreement forms, or rejection.<\/p>\n
Other studies have focused, in particular, on the structure<\/em> of offering exchanges. Aijmer (1996) exemplified routines consisting of a pre-sequence, a response to it, a direct offer, and a step toward the accomplishment of a social commitment. Barron (2003) illustrated how offering sequences may comprise an Initiate move, which initiates an exchange; a Counter move, an attempt to get the interlocutor to modify or qualify the preceding offer; a Reoffer, an attempt to reiterate an offer; a Contra, an attempt to get the interlocutor to withdraw the offer; and a Satisfy, which produces an outcome. Similarly, Rabinowitz (1993) identified the following offering sequences: i) offering, accepting, giving, and thanking; ii) offering, refusing, and switching to a new topic; iii) offering, weakly agreeing, repeating the offer, accepting, and giving; iv) offering, refusing, elaborating on the offer, refusing again, and re-elaborating on the offer; v) offering, requesting clarification, repeating the offer, and refusing; and vi) offering, and failing to acknowledge the offer. Finally, Hofstetter and Stokoe (2015) examined offers of assistance in institutional settings, that is, those made spontaneously by British Members of Parliament to their constituents. Using a conversation analytic approach, they identified three types of offers in offering sequences: proposal offers, which appeared first in a sequence, were formulated as want queries, ability statements or permission requests; announcement offers, which appeared second, were formulated as will statements indicating that decisions had been made; and (3) request offers, which appeared third, were typically expressed as imperatives like \u201cLet me do X\u201d, occurring when the offeree appeared dissatisfied with the ongoing interaction.<\/p>\n
Still other studies have explored the formal and functional manifestations<\/em> of offer strategies. Barron (2005) examined Irish English and British English offers elicited through a production questionnaire. These illustrated occurrences of the Preference Strategies, which pointed to the conditional nature of offers; Execution Strategies, which underlined the commissive nature of offers; and Directive strategies, which highlighted the directive nature of offers. The higher frequency of direct strategies, often accompanied by external mitigators, in the Irish data, was accounted for with reference to the sociopragmatic norms of the Irish informants, who apparently perceived a low degree of face threat in offers, attributing importance to an obligation to demonstrate hospitality.<\/p>\n
Using a variational pragmatic approach, Barron (2017) also examined offer strategies and their realisations in transcripts of face-to-face British English and Irish English conversations, considering the propositional content, context of use, and hearer uptake of initiative offers. Her findings showed differences between the two varieties in the frequencies with which they instantiated the Preference, Execution, and Directive strategies, and their more specific sub-strategies, in the wording of the specific strategies, and in the frequency of hospitable vs other offers. Although using different terms, Couper-Kuhlen (2014) similarly described offers as encoded in one of three formats: \u201ca polar interrogative querying the recipient\u2019s need or desire for some future act; the recipient\u2019s possible need or desire for the future act [\u2026] expressed conditionally; a positive imperative\u201d (p. 639). A more focused analysis appears in Barron (2011), who illustrated how the Execution strategy question future act of speaker<\/em> in face-to-face offer exchanges was relevant to situations in which the face-threat to one or the other interlocutor was relatively low, and how it tended to be encoded as will I <\/em>+ agentive verb in Irish English vs shall I <\/em>+ agentive verb in British English. Finally, Yaqubi, Saeed and Khaksari (2016) considered the dimensions of politeness, costs-benefits and (in)directness in Persian offers exemplified in Iranian films. Their results showed that the reasons motivating direct and indirect offers were the maxims of tact and generosity \u00e0 la Leech, and that the politeness implicatures originating from these speech acts could be motivated by taking into consideration the cost-benefit scale involved in the proposed transaction rather than violations of the Gricean Cooperative Principle.<\/p>\n
Offers have also been analysed in their multimodal dimension, that is, in terms of how they are constructed through the use of language, the body, and the interactional and material context. For instance, K\u00e4rkk\u00e4inen and Keisanen\u2019s (2012) study reports how, in the face-to-face conversations considered, offers made available to the interlocutor a concrete object present in the situation through two interlinked actions, the identification of a referent and the offer proper. When the offered item had not been oriented to in prior discourse, both actions were fully verbalised, typically through a complex sentence; instead, when the offered item was salient to participants\u2019 consciousness, the first action was done through a gesture, while the offer proper was expressed in a simple clause.<\/p>\n
Additionally, some studies have examined the content, strategies and formulation of responses to offers<\/em>. Hartuti (2014) investigated declinations of offers elicited from teachers through DCTs, observing how indirect strategies (esp. excuses) were favoured over direct ones when addressing interlocutors of higher, equal or lower status, and that they were often accompanied by expressions of gratitude. Saud (2019) showed how, when Saudi EFL students declined offers in a DCT, they produced indirect refusals more often than direct refusals or adjunct refusals (i.e. avoidance strategies), when addressing interlocutors of higher, lower or equal status. Karafoti (2021) analysed offer sequences in a corpus of spoken Greek from a conversation analytic perspective, classifying offer responses in terms of their alignment to, or deviation from, structural and social expectations. She noticed how offer responses could be formulated as typical preferred or dispreferred second pair parts, but also that they could both appear in a dispreferred format, depending on the interplay between the sequencing, function and design of given turns. Haugh (2017) examined transcripts of naturally occurring conversations, exploring the role of hinting in request-offer sequences. The analysis showed how requestive hints prompted offers of assistance, and how both the hints and the responses to offer prompts, when provided, were \u201crecurrently formatted in ways that avoid <\/em>speakers being held accountably committed to having intended <\/em>to prompt the offer in question\u201d (p. 186; original emphasis). The study also showed that the design of offer responses mainly made it possible to distinguish between \u201coffers accomplished as prompted <\/em>by a prior reporting, and offers accomplished as pre-emptive <\/em>of an incipient request\u201d (p. 188; original emphasis).<\/p>\n
Still other investigations have considered offers also from a pedagogical or cross-linguistic\/cultural perspective<\/em>. One study, by Bella (2016), examined developmental patterns in the production of offers, among Greek foreign language learners of three different levels of proficiency, on the basis of role-play data and retrospective verbal reports. The author noticed grammatical and pragmalinguistic development in the learners\u2019 use of offer strategies and their syntactic modifications, but also that this was not accompanied by similar levels of sociopragmatic development. Astruc and del Mar Vanrell (2016) compared and contrasted oral offers elicited from English learners of Spanish and native speakers of Spanish. The authors observed how the learners produced a more limited range of morpho-syntactic politeness strategies compared to the native speakers, and also that they often transferred intonational patterns from their L1. Grainger et al. (2015) qualitatively examined the formulation, content and sequencing of offers and refusals produced in Arabic and English during naturally occurring hospitality encounters. They noticed general similarities in Arabic and English offering behaviour in terms of strategies and their sequencing, but also greater conventionalisation and emphasis in the moves of insisting and refusing in Arabic. This revealed orientation more toward equity vs association in the English vs Arabic data, respectively. Finally, an instructional unit on how to accept offers is presented in Chang and Su (2018). Prepared for learners of Chinese as a second or foreign language, on the basis of (semi-)authentic materials, the lesson focused on the negotiation of speech acts across turns, and more specifically on how to produce acceptance sequences in role-plays. The lesson included awareness-raising, noticing and practicing activities, and was reported as being both generally effective and appreciated when field-tested.<\/p>\n
The above studies have demonstrated that a range of alternative responses may follow an offering illocution, and that offering sequences may occupy several turns, and be interspersed with additional prompts and reactions from the offerer. The studies have also provided detailed descriptions of what offering sequences are like when interaction is not oriented towards the achievement of a pre-determined communicative-transactional goal. However, there is a gap in the literature in that they have not addressed the issue of move identification in offering sequences.<\/p>\n
Research Questions<\/h4>\n
In this study, I investigate how offering exchanges are carried out when the overt focus of the interaction is the initiating participant\u2019s offering illocution. I address the following research questions:<\/p>\n
Research Question 1: What moves make up offering exchanges in elicited oral interaction?<\/p>\n
Research Question 2: Which ones are produced by the offerer vs the offeree, and which ones by both interactants, and what are their shared and unshared traits?<\/p>\n
Research Question 3: How can these moves be identified in conversations?<\/p>\n
Research Question 4: What research-informed guidelines can be developed for teaching practice?<\/p>\n
Method<\/h3>\n
In this section, I present my qualitative and quantitative approach to the analysis of offering exchanges.<\/p>\n
Participants<\/h4>\n
The study participants were six pairs of university students, native speakers (NSs) of American English, aged 17-24 (six males and six females). They were recruited by means of an invitation to contribute to what was referred to as a half-hour-long linguistic experiment in exchange for a small monetary reward. The invitation was posted on the bulletin board of the lab where the data were going to be collected and also circulated via email among the students attending two undergraduate linguistics courses. It specified only one requirement, namely that candidate participants be NSs of English.<\/p>\n
Data Collection Instrument<\/h4>\n
The elicitation material included 39 descriptions of situations in which one interactant was in a position to provide the other interactant with a potentially highly desirable good or service: the great value of the item in question was expected to favour the instantiation of offering exchanges. The scenarios comprised distinct prompts for the target participant roles of offerer vs offeree and were grouped into six sets, relevant to socially different types of potential offerees: intimate and equal (i.e., -D, =P; Set A: seven scenarios); distant and equal (i.e., +D, =P; Set B: nine scenarios); intimate and subordinate (i.e., -D, -P; Set C: six scenarios); distant and subordinate (i.e., +D, -P; Set D: three scenarios); intimate and superior (i.e., -D, +P; Set E: three scenarios); and distant and superior (i.e., +D, +P; Set F: one scenario). The communicative situations outlined in them were adaptations of real-life events experienced by me, as a participant or witness, or related to me by others, which accounts for the different number of scenarios included in each set.<\/p>\n
In the following illustrative scenario, Speaker A and Speaker B identify, respectively, the roles of the potential offerer and offeree:<\/p>\n
Scenario OF-O1-C1<\/p>\n
Speaker A (offerer):<\/p>\n
You run a small shoe factory that employs half a dozen people. You have noticed that one of your employees has been suffering from backache for some time. You are on familiar terms with a famous local orthopaedist you went to school with. Since you know that you can easily talk your doctor friend into finding time in his\/her busy schedule to see your employee, you think you can arrange an appointment for your employee with that doctor next week. You go over to his\/her workspace. What do you say? <\/em><\/p>\n
Speaker B (offeree):<\/p>\n
You are a worker in a small shoe factory. You have been suffering from backache for some time now. Your employer has noticed this. He\/she comes over to your workspace<\/em>.<\/em><\/p>\n
Data Collection Procedure<\/h4>\n
After signing up online for a convenient date and time slot, pairs of participants showed up at the lab, where they were accommodated in a sound-proof booth. There, they were shown the six sets of scenarios, from which they chose the six scenarios they would base their role-plays on. More specifically, one participant chose the scenarios from sets A, B and C, after silently reading the prompts for the offerer role, and the other was asked to confirm or reject those choices after reading the complementary prompts for the offeree role, until an agreement was reached. They then switched roles for sets D, E and F. The participants were shown one set of scenarios at a time, and after making each selection, they were left alone in the booth to record their role-play. They were asked to imagine themselves in the situations outlined in the chosen scenarios and interact accordingly, for as long as they wished, and were given the opportunity to opt out of the task. They were also instructed on how to turn on and off the recording equipment and how to delete their recordings if they so wished.<\/p>\n
Overall, 36 dialogues were collected, later transcribed by a NS and proofread by me. Five transcripts had to be discarded because it appeared that, occasionally, the participants had failed to follow instructions (i.e., disregarding the participants\u2019 role-relationships); instantiated alternative kinds of speech acts, although in line with the scenarios (e.g., a request pre-empting an offer, a promise replacing an offer); or produced implausible turns, turn units or turn combinations (e.g., intra-speaker inconsistent utterances; inter-speaker illogical turn sequences; interlocutors\u2019 temporarily stepping out of their roles). As a result, the material considered consists of the transcripts of 31 role-play conversations (about 9,000 words). Below are two sample transcripts relevant to the above scenario, where square brackets signal overlapping part utterances:<\/p>\n
Transcript OF-O1-C1-01<\/p>\n
A. Hi Katie, how are you doing today?<\/em>
\nB. Oh man, hey boss, I\u2019m not doing so well honestly.<\/em>
\nA. Oh, what\u2019s wrong? I, I kind of noticed that your back is like\u2026<\/em>
\nB. Yeah, I, I\u2019ve, I\u2019ve been having a lot of back pain recently.<\/em>
\nA. What happened?<\/em>
\nB. Um, well, I don\u2019t know, I just, I\u2019ve been straining from the work I guess, um, I don\u2019t know\u2026<\/em>
\nA. Well, I mean, like, if it\u2019s come to the\u2026 like, is it hurting a lot? <\/em>
\nB. Yeah, it\u2019s hurting a\u2026 big time, like I don\u2019t, I\u2019m not sure what I should do.<\/em>
\nA. Well, I mean, I know\u2026 I have a friend who\u2019s a doctor and he\u2019s really good at this kind of stuff. He\u2019s kind of busy, he\u2019s been really busy lately but, um, I mean I could try to, like, set up an appointment. Would you like that?<\/em>
\nB. Wow, that\u2019d be great, yeah.<\/em>
\nA. Ok. I\u2019ll, I\u2019ll call him right away.<\/em>
\nB. Oh, thanks, (laughs) thanks, boss!<\/em><\/p>\nTranscript OF-O1-C1-02<\/p>\n
A. Hey Matt, er, I\u2019ve been noticing that you\u2026 have some trouble with your back, is that \u2026 true?<\/em>
\nB. Yeah, it\u2019s been really hurting recently, I think it\u2019s, just been overworking it or something, <\/em>
\n [not s]ure. <\/em>
\nA. [I] I understand that. I actually, er, went to school with er, a local ocu, orthopaedic here and\u2026 if you want me to I can definitely set up an appointment for you. <\/em>
\nB. Yeah, I, that\u2019d be great if you don\u2019t mind. I think that would work wonders for it. I definitely need some attention soon if I wanna keep working here at this rate so\u2026<\/em>
\nA. Yeah, no problem, er it definitely would benefit both of us so I\u2019ll give him a call and, er, I\u2019ll get him to set up a time with you then.<\/em>
\nB. Great, appreciate it.<\/em>
\nA. No problem.<\/em><\/p>\nAnalysis<\/h3>\n
My qualitative analysis consisted in an inductive, bottom-up procedure aimed at comparing and contrasting the offerers\u2019 and the offerees\u2019 contributions to discourse. My quantitative analysis was meant to describe the frequency of occurrence, dispersion, and sequential patterns of their interactional-transactional moves across the data.<\/p>\n
Qualitative analysis<\/u><\/em><\/strong>.<\/strong> I first familiarized myself with the content of the transcripts through repeated readings; then, I identified the offerers\u2019 and the offerees\u2019 moves in 10 transcripts on the basis of functional and semantic criteria (see below). Next, I applied the coding criteria to the remaining data, adapting and refining the descriptors of the coding criteria, where necessary, so as to accurately account for all the data. Finally, I examined the functional, sequential, and content-related properties of the offerers\u2019 and the offerees\u2019 moves, describing their mutual relevance, and outlining their role in the interactions.<\/p>\n
To account for the offerers\u2019 and offerees\u2019 interactional behaviour, I provided both definitions of the moves making up their discourse, so as to indicate the communicative roles that turns (or turn segments) played in the interaction, and identification criteria showing on what grounds such communicative roles could be applied to given turns (or turn segments). (For a discussion of the notion of \u2018move\u2019, see Gesuato, 2018.) I thus specified the following for each move:<\/p>\n
\n
- a short label for ease of reference;<\/li>\n
- a definition stating its communicative role;<\/li>\n
- a function detector, that is, a (usually interrogative) heuristic prompt for identifying the type of interactional-transactional action being performed;<\/li>\n
- a content classifier, that is, a general description of the kind of information conveyed;<\/li>\n
- a content indicator, a more specific indication of the entities, situations or events mentioned;<\/li>\n
- the interlocutor role associated with it (offerer vs offeree);<\/li>\n
- and, wherever possible, its sequential and content-related relevance to the other interlocutor\u2019s moves: exchange-initiating (i.e., priming for a response), exchange-developing it (i.e., sustaining or negotiating the other party\u2019s contribution), or closure-achieving (i.e., ratifying, rejecting or disregarding the other party\u2019s contribution).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
To recognise move tokens in the data, I checked whether the application of the identification criteria relevant to a given move type provided convergent evidence towards the identification of the same text segment. That is, I regarded a given turn unit as the token of a given move:<\/p>\n
\n
- if it provided a fitting response to the heuristic prompt of that move;<\/li>\n
- if this was in line with the illustrative kind of information relevant to that move;<\/li>\n
- if it exemplified content associated with that move;<\/li>\n
- if it was uttered by an interlocutor playing the interactional role indicated for that move;<\/li>\n
- and, where applicable, if its position in the conversational exchange and its content showed its relevance to another move by the interlocutor.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
This is in line with Levinson (2013), who argues how actions in talk-in-interaction are recognised by \u201ca range of factors: format (linguistic shape), content (e.g., mentioning of conditions on another action), position in a sequence, the nature of the prior sequence, by detecting the underlying project from the current and preceding turns, and by tracking epistemic authority and other aspects of context.\u201d (p. 127).<\/p>\n
The identification of move tokens revealed occasional mismatches between the syntactic and\/or typographic vs the functional characteristics of the data.<\/p>\n
\n
- Some turns, or turn units, were compatible with the descriptive criteria of two move types, and in such cases, I coded those stretches of discourse for both functions; for instance, in OF-O1-A3-01, \u201cbecause you guys are family,\u201d uttered by the offerer, encoded both an Illocution Motivator move and a Face Enhancer move: it justified the offer, but also made the offeree feel good.<\/li>\n
- At other times, a turn segment encoding a given move occurred nested in a larger turn segment encoding a higher-order move, and in such cases, I coded both; for example, in OF-O1-D3-04, the Head Act Response segment \u201cso if [sic] could give me some help that would be greatly appreciated,\u201d which encoded a conditional reactive acceptance of the offered item, also included reference to a Pre-condition Check move, namely \u201cso if [sic] could give me some help\u201d.<\/li>\n
- On other occasions, a turn segment encoding a given move overlapped in part with a turn segment encoding another move, both of which I therefore coded; for instance, in OF-O1-A4-02, the Background move describing the offered service \u201cOk, so, um, shouldn\u2019t take too long. Once my neighbour, er my friend and I have finished our weekly correspondence then I should be free,\u201d overlapped with the Pre-condition Assert move referring to the pre-condition for its possible provision, that is, \u201cthen I should be free, because I don\u2019t have anything.\u201d (Cf. Levinson (2013, pp. 118, 127), who observes how turns may perform more actions simultaneously, by combining turn-constructional units fitting into a larger schema.)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
To aim at intra-rater reliability, I classified the data three times, the second and third of which took place 2 and 3 months after the first classification, respectively. When I noticed inconsistencies between the first and the second time, and between the second and third time, I further analysed the relevant text segments and their preceding and following discourse, until I arrived at a final classification.<\/p>\n
Quantitative analysis<\/u><\/strong>.<\/strong> In the quantitative analysis of the data, I determined the frequency of occurrence of the moves outlined above and their dispersion across the datasets. To account for formally or functionally complex turns or turn segments (see Qualitative analysis<\/em>), I adopted the following count criteria:<\/p>\n
\n
- when I identified two or more adjacent instances of a given move in the same turn, I regarded them as one token of that move;<\/li>\n
- when I identified a repeatedly-occurring move in non-adjacent segments in the same turn, I counted each turn segment as a distinct move token (e.g., two Head Act Response moves in OF-O1-A3-01: \u201cYeah, um I\u2019ll definitely consider it. [\u2026] but I appreciate the offer\u201d);<\/li>\n
- when I identified multiple occurrences of the same move over multiple turns by the same interlocutor (i.e., separated by turns produced by the other interlocutor), I counted each turn segment as a distinct move token (e.g., in OF-O1-04-02, the offerer realised the Closing move twice (i.e., \u201cSee you tomorrow\u201d and \u201cBye\u201d), before and after, respectively, the Closing move by the offereer (i.e., \u201cBye-bye\u201d));<\/li>\n
- when an utterance by one interlocutor displayed minimal overlap with the other interlocutor\u2019s backchannel, I classified it as one token of a given move, even if in the transcript it occupied two non-consecutive turns (e.g., in OF-O1-B4-03, B\u2019s Other move was encoded in \u201cHa,\u201d which appeared inside (i.e., minimally simultaneously with) Speaker A\u2019s Other move: \u201cA: Oh, ok. I was making a fruitcake and, it was a practical joke for one of my fellow workers who happens to be a complete fruit B: Ha A: except that I, I got the dosage of baking soda wrong and (laughs) used an extremely sour grapefruit instead of the recommended oranges\u201d);<\/li>\n
- when a turn segment was tagged for two moves simultaneously (see Qualitative analysis<\/em>), I counted it once for one move and once for the other;<\/li>\n
- when a turn segment encoding a given move occurred nested in a larger turn segment encoding a higher-order move, I counted each turn segment separately for the distinct moves;<\/li>\n
- when a turn segment encoding a given move overlapped in part with a turn segment encoding another move, I counted each turn segment separately for the distinct moves.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Findings<\/h3>\n
In this section, I report the findings of my qualitative and quantitative analysis.<\/p>\n
Move Types<\/h4>\n
The corpus exemplified 18 move types, which could be divided into two sets: those relevant to the management of the interaction (i.e., framing moves; Savi\u0107, 2018) and the relationship with the interlocutor, and those furthering the offering interaction-transaction (i.e., illocution-relevant moves). The first set of moves all fulfilled interpersonal and\/or communicative needs that were independent of the illocutionary goal of the interactions. The second set of moves took care of contextual and exchange-related aspects of the interaction. The moves are presented in Tables 1 to 13. Where applicable, pairs or sets of moves describing mutually relevant verbal actions are shown side by side.<\/p>\n
Among the interaction-management moves, Alerter, Alerter Reply (see Table 1) and Closing (see Table 3) served a phatic function. Opener (see Table 2), Face Enhancer and Face-Enhancing Reciprocation (see Table 4) addressed the interlocutors\u2019 positive face needs, in line with the offering illocution, which was meant to favour and sustain good relationships. The Alerter, Alerter Reply and Opener moves occasionally shared part of their propositional content; that is, they contained self- or interlocutor-identifying information. Two pairs of moves (Alerter and Alerter Reply, and Face-Enhancer and Face-Enhancing Reciprocation) distinguished between the interactional roles of exchange-initiator or exchange-responder: while similar in function and content, they differed in their orientation towards the following vs the preceding discourse, respectively.<\/p>\n
Table 1. Alerter and Alerter Reply Moves.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n\n
\n Interlocutor role<\/td>\n Offerer<\/td>\n Offeree<\/td>\n Offerer<\/td>\n Offeree<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Label<\/td>\n Alerter<\/strong><\/td>\n Alerter Reply<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Definition<\/td>\n Establishing contact with the interlocutor<\/td>\n Confirming contact with the interlocutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Function detectors<\/td>\n How does one interlocutor call for the other\u2019s attention or establish contact with them?<\/p>\n Who are the interlocutors?<\/p>\n
What is the interlocutors\u2019 likely social relationship?<\/td>\n
How does one interlocutor reply to the other interlocutor\u2019s attempt to establish contact?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Content classifiers<\/td>\n Greetings, address terms, attention-getters, phatic queries<\/p>\n Names, social\/professional roles<\/p>\n
Formal vs intimate relationship<\/td>\n
Confirmation of achieved joint attention<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Content indicator<\/td>\n Greeting the interlocutor and\/or drawing their attention<\/td>\n Responding to the interlocutor\u2019s summons<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Discursive orientation<\/td>\n Priming for a response<\/td>\n Providing a response and\/or soliciting a further response<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Examples<\/td>\n Excuse me sir?<\/em><\/p>\n Hi Katie<\/em><\/td>\n
Hey, Christine<\/em><\/p>\n Hey Miss Benevidas<\/em><\/td>\n
Hello?<\/em><\/p>\n Oh hi there, this is Jelila<\/em><\/td>\n
Yes?<\/em><\/p>\n Oh, hello Professor Jen<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
Table 2. Opener Move.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n\n
\n Interlocutor role<\/td>\n Offerer<\/td>\n Offeree<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Label<\/td>\n Opener<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Definition<\/td>\n Creating an interactional bond with the interlocutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Function detectors<\/td>\n How does the interaction get underway?<\/p>\n How does one interlocutor get it started?<\/p>\n
How does the other keep it going?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n Content classifiers<\/td>\n Discussion of safe topics<\/p>\n Health inquiries<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n Content indicators<\/td>\n Introductions<\/p>\n Small talk:<\/p>\n
\u2022 Announcing the start of an exchange<\/p>\n
\u2022 Engaging in ice-breaking small talk<\/p>\n
\u2022 Confirming the willingness to engage in small talk<\/p>\n
\u2022 Mentioning a shared experience<\/p>\n
\u2022 Inquiring about the interlocutor\u2019s health<\/p>\n
\u2022 Informing the interlocutor about one\u2019s well-being<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n Discursive orientation<\/td>\n Priming for a response or providing a relevant response<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Examples<\/td>\n I\u2019m good, how are you?<\/em><\/p>\n How was work?<\/em><\/p>\n
Could I stop and talk to you for a little bit?<\/em><\/td>\n
You\u2019re here for your last day?<\/em><\/p>\n Sure, of course<\/em><\/p>\n
Yeah, I\u2019m, I\u2019m a neighbour<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
Table 3. Closing Move.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n\n
\n Interlocutor role<\/td>\n Offerer<\/td>\n Offeree<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Label<\/td>\n Closing<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Definition<\/td>\n Winding down the interaction and bringing it to a close<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Function detector<\/td>\n How do the interlocutors take their leave?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Content classifier<\/td>\n Signalling the conclusion of a topic or the reaching of an agreement<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Content indicators<\/td>\n Expressing good wishes<\/p>\n Reciprocating pleasantries<\/p>\n
Expressing thanks or farewells<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n Discursive orientation<\/td>\n Priming for, or providing, a response<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Examples<\/td>\n See you tomorrow<\/em><\/p>\n Love you too<\/em><\/p>\n
Alright, have a good day<\/em><\/td>\n
You have a good day<\/em><\/p>\n Thank you<\/em><\/p>\n
Well, hopefully you\u2019ll come back some time<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
Table 4. Face-Enhancer and Face-Enhancing Reciprocation Moves.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n\n
\n Interlocutor role<\/td>\n Offerer<\/td>\n Offeree<\/td>\n Offerer<\/td>\n Offeree<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Label<\/td>\n Face-Enhancer<\/strong><\/td>\n Face-Enhancing Reciprocation<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Definition<\/td>\n Building or stressing solidarity and closeness with the interlocutor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Function detectors<\/td>\n How does one interlocutor let the other know they are understood, accepted, appreciated?<\/p>\n How does one interlocutor prevent the other from feeling bad, excluded, disapproved of or criticized?<\/td>\n
How does one interlocutor acknowledge and\/or reciprocate the other\u2019s solidarity-sustaining verbal action?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Content classifiers<\/td>\n Expressing affection or appreciation towards the interlocutor<\/td>\n Expressing a positive reactive attitude towards the interlocutor<\/p>\n Reassuring the interlocutor about the negative effects of a given situation<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n Content indicators<\/td>\n Expressing affection, liking, gratitude, compliments, positive comments, good wishes, concern<\/td>\n Expressing reactive gratitude, positive comments, good wishes<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Minimising the interlocutor\u2019s social debts<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Discursive orientation<\/td>\n Priming for a response<\/td>\n Providing a response<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Examples<\/td>\n Just feel better, ok?<\/em><\/p>\n So, um, well, you\u2019re pretty cute<\/em><\/p>\n
Good luck<\/em><\/td>\n
Appreciate it<\/em><\/p>\n Well, it was very nice to meet you<\/em><\/p>\n
I\u2019m glad we get to spend time together<\/em><\/td>\n
No problem<\/em><\/p>\n Any time<\/em><\/p>\n
All right, er, that\u2019s wonderful<\/em><\/td>\n
And thank you for coming and just helping me supervise and stuff<\/em><\/p>\n I love you too, honey<\/em><\/p>\n
Ok. I’m looking forward to speaking with you soon<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
The illocution-relevant moves furthered the goals of the offering exchanges \u2013 the offerer\u2019s bid for interaction, the offeree\u2019s reaction to it, and both interlocutors\u2019 complementary supportive strategies. They included three offerer-specific moves, namely Head Act, Illocution Motivator, Acceptance Maximiser (see Tables 5, 6, 7), three offeree-specific moves, namely Head Act Response, Reaction Motivator, Need Minimiser (see Tables 5, 6, 7) \u2013 which paired up in likely complementary sequences \u2013 and six moves uttered by both interlocutors; that is, Introducer (see Table 8), Pre-condition Assert, Pre-Condition Check (see Table 9), Background (see Table 10), Negotiations (see Table 11), and Next Steps (see Table 12).<\/p>\n
Table 5. Head Act and Head Act Response Moves.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n\n
\n Interlocutor role<\/td>\n Offerer<\/td>\n Offeree<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Label<\/td>\n Head Act<\/strong><\/td>\n Head Act Response<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Definition<\/td>\n Expressing the illocution and its object, or a pre-condition for the illocution<\/td>\n Reacting to the offering illocution<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Function detectors<\/td>\n What does the offerer aim to make available to the offeree?<\/p>\n What do they want to do, or what can they do, for the offeree?<\/td>\n
Is the offeree willing to accept the offered item?<\/p>\n How do they feel about it?<\/p>\n
What good\/service does the offeree want?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n Content classifiers<\/td>\n Reference to a good\/service<\/p>\n Reference to the offerer\u2019s attitude towards the good\/service<\/p>\n
Reference to the offeree\u2019s possible attitude towards the good\/service<\/p>\n
Reference to the options regarding the good\/service<\/td>\n
Confirmation\/refutation of the acceptability of the offered item<\/p>\n Interested, appreciative or indifferent attitude to the offered item<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n Content indicators<\/td>\n Stating the availability of the good\/service (expressing the readiness, intention or ability to provide it)<\/p>\n Inquiring about the desirability of the good\/service<\/td>\n
Expressing gratitude, tentativeness or enthusiasm about the offer<\/p>\n Expressing reactive emotional impact<\/p>\n
Evaluating the offered item<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n Discursive orientation<\/td>\n Priming for a response<\/td>\n Providing a response<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Examples<\/td>\n I\u2019ll grab some ice-cream<\/em><\/p>\n I mean, I could navigate there for you<\/em><\/p>\n
Er, wondering if you\u2019re interested in it?<\/em><\/td>\n
Yeah, um I\u2019ll definitely consider it<\/em><\/p>\n That sounds fantastic!<\/em><\/p>\n
Oh, no, don\u2019t worry about it<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
Table 6. Illocution Motivator and Reaction Motivator Moves.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n\n
\n Interlocutor role<\/td>\n Offerer<\/td>\n Offeree<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Label<\/td>\n Illocution Motivator<\/strong><\/td>\n Reaction Motivator<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Definition<\/td>\n Justifying the offer as appropriate, reasonable or feasible<\/td>\n Justifying the reaction to the offer as appropriate and logical<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Function detectors<\/td>\n What makes the offer attractive?<\/p>\n What benefit does it bring?<\/td>\n
What circumstances justify the acceptance of the offer?<\/p>\n What circumstances justify the rejection of the offer (i.e., why is the provision of a benefit unnecessary)?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n Content classifiers<\/td>\n The offered item is relevant to a circumstance of the offeree<\/p>\n A positive effect can be achieved to the offeree\u2019s benefit<\/td>\n
An issue can be tackled, a goal achieved or a preference satisfied, possibly with someone\u2019s help<\/p>\n There is no specific problem to solve or goal to achieve, which might require someone\u2019s help<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n Content indicators<\/td>\n Mentioning a problem faced, a need experienced, or a goal pursued by the offeree<\/p>\n Acknowledging an issue\/situation previously mentioned by the offeree<\/p>\n
Mentioning the offeree\u2019s previous generous, commendable behaviour<\/td>\n
Mentioning or confirming circumstances (e.g., expectations, problems experienced, goals) that make the offer appropriate<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Discursive orientation<\/td>\n Priming for a response<\/td>\n Providing a response<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Examples<\/td>\n So that you don\u2019t have to borrow money from anybody else<\/em><\/p>\n Cause we really enjoy having you here<\/em><\/p>\n
Just in case the cake doesn\u2019t turn well and then at least the kids will have ice cream<\/em><\/td>\n
So that you could help my structure and that it would be a better thesis<\/em><\/p>\n Yeah, you know, er, you know I hate borrowing money from you guys [\u2026]<\/em><\/p>\n
I think that would work wonders for it [\u2026]<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
Table 7. Acceptance Maximiser and Need Minimiser Moves.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n\n
\n Interlocutor role<\/td>\n Offerer<\/td>\n Offeree<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Label<\/td>\n Acceptance Maximiser<\/strong><\/td>\n Need Minimiser<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Definition<\/td>\n Offering incentives to accept the offer<\/td>\n Offering reasons for pre-empting the provision of a good\/service<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Function detectors<\/td>\n Why is it important, useful or beneficial to have the offer accepted?<\/p>\n How beneficial, valuable or agreeable is the offer to the parties involved if compared to its cost?<\/p>\n
How sincere is the offerer in making the offer?<\/td>\n
How sincere is the offeree in rejecting the offer?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Content classifiers<\/td>\n The offered item serves a given purpose<\/p>\n The value of the offered item makes the act of providing it worth it<\/p>\n
The offerer really intends to be of help to the offeree<\/td>\n
The offered item is not necessary or fully appropriate<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Content indicators<\/td>\n Stressing the benefit\/value of the offered item<\/p>\n Pointing out the negative consequences of the failure to accept the offered item<\/p>\n
Pre-empting objections to acceptance (i.e., reassuring the offeree about the envisaged positive effect of the offer or its negligible cost, or the offerer\u2019s sincerity, ability or positive attitude)<\/p>\n
Persevering with the offer by repeating it or soliciting acceptance<\/p>\n
Ascertaining the offeree\u2019s sincerity in expressing reluctance to accept the offered item<\/td>\n
Explaining why no need has to be met (e.g., limited magnitude of the problem faced, lack of problems, stating self-sufficiency, reference to social norms)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Discursive orientation<\/td>\n Priming for or providing a response<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Examples<\/td>\n I got you, don\u2019t worry about it<\/em><\/p>\n Yeah, it\u2019s fine, you know<\/em><\/p>\n
It\u2019s just a little temporary helping-you-out kind of thing<\/em><\/td>\n
Oh, I\u2019m fine thank you <\/em><\/p>\n But I feel bad if I er, don\u2019t make you dinner<\/em><\/p>\n
But I, I feel like, I, I can\u2019t take anything from you <\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n
Through the other six moves, the interlocutors sustained the offering illocution by paving the way for it (Introducer; see Table 8), ascertaining its feasibility (Pre-condition Assert, Pre-Condition Check; see Table 9), describing aspects of the offered item (Background; see Table 10), discussing and reaching an agreement on the expected perlocution (Negotiations; see Table 11) or taking care of the envisaged interactional outcome (Next steps; see Table 12).<\/p>\n
Table 8. Introducer Move.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n\n
\n Interlocutor role<\/td>\n Offerer<\/td>\n Offeree<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Label<\/td>\n Introducer<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Definition<\/td>\n Introducing, acknowledging or inquiring about the topic an offer will be relevant to<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Function detectors<\/td>\n What are the interlocutors talking about or commenting on?<\/p>\n What topic is one interlocutor asking confirmation about?<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n Content classifier<\/td>\n A topic that (probably) matters to or affects the offeree<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Content indicators<\/td>\n Mentioning an event or situation involving the offeree<\/p>\n Checking the relevance, or offering evaluative feedback on, the newly introduced topic<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n Discursive orientation<\/td>\n Priming for or providing a response<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Examples<\/td>\n Well, I, well actually, I used to have a fruit cake store<\/em><\/p>\n You didn\u2019t buy the insurance?<\/em><\/p>\n